CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE Flashcards
Florence v Mann (1890) (*)
- Raised action against hotel proprietor for £2000 damages. Fell from second floor. Initially found for pursuer but the jury assess the damages to £300. At the time this was not possible.
POL: “either the words were used in their ordinary and legal signification, or they were used in some different sense which the jury failed to explain. In the first alternative the verdict is void as being contrary to law; in the second alternative void for uncertainty or ambiguity.”
INITIALLY IT WAS A COMPLETE DEFENCE. Directly contributed= a complete defence, remotely connected= irrelevant.
Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (*)
Held in a police cell, noted suicide risk. Flap for cell door left open by accident. Hung self. Action by person he lived and had child with. Sued for negligence as a ground of the 1945 Act. FAULT= both intentional and negligent acts included. 50% CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. Can be pleaded even where responsibility of the pursuer was very thing defender was supposed to prevent
POL: FAULT IN THE ACT REFERS TO INCLUDE INTENTIONAL AND NEGLIGENT ACTS. Shows the relation of contributory negligence to both novus and venti. Adjudicating contributory negligence.
Mitchell v Hutchison (*)
FACTS= Injured in road accident. Sole fault of other driver. However, neither of the individuals in the other car were wearing seat belts. In first case, it would have led to less serious injuries so 15% reduction for contributory negligence. However, for the other it would have led to more serious injuries. No contributory negligence in this case. POL= Rare occasion where not wearing seat belt led to fewer injuries, no fault if it reduces the damage. NEED A CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN FAULT AND DAMAGE.
Stapley v Gypsum Mines Ltd (*)
FACTS= Well recognised mine danger at the fall off part of the roof. Generally showed up, can detect a weakness by tapping that part of the roof. There are a number of methods available to remove the weakness. Known that they must not stand directly underneath. Instructed to sort but not informed of the exact method to use. Very awkward part and couldn’t remove. Decided safe enough to continue to work. Came back 30 mins later and one worker had large piece of roof fall on him and he died. Damage reduced by 80% due to his contribution.
POL: “The claimants share in the blameworthiness cannot, I think, be assessed with considering the relative importance of his acts in causing the damage apart from his blameworthiness.” Matter of causal potency as well as blameworthiness.
Jackson v Murray (*)
Facts: Similar to Banner case but 13 instead. Big confrontation in trying to make a decision for the case. OUTER HOUSE: 90% negligence of them, 10% awarded. INNER HOUSE: 70% negligent, 30% awarded.
SUPREME COURT: 50%- 50%. Need to look at pursuer circumstances.
POL: “It is necessary(…) to take account both of the blameworthiness of the parties and causative potency of their acts.”
“Regard has to be had to the circumstances of the pursuer. 13 year old will not necessarily have the same level of judgement and self-control as an adult. It is also necessary to bear in mind that the situation of a pedestrian attempting to cross a relatively major road with a 60mph limit, after dusk, with no street lighting, would even be difficult for an adult.”
St George v Home Office (*)
FACTS: Prisoner fell off top bunk bed while suffering withdrawal seizures. Head injury which caused brain damage. No reduction.
As fault as in 1945 Act= not a potent cause of the injury
POL: Causal potency can be inadequate in situations.
Gough v Thorne (*)
13 1/2 year old girl waiting to cross road with 2 brothers. Bollards in the middle of the road. Lorry stops between the girl and the bollards. Puts out hand to encourage to cross and hand to other drivers to stop them driving past. one other driver failed to notice and hit the girl. No contributory negligence in this case by the girl.
POL: TEST IS ORDINARY CHILD OF THAT AGE- “If he or she is of such an age as to be expected to take precautions for own safety… And he or she is only to be found guilty if blame should be attached.” LORD DENNING
Banner’s Tutors v Kennedy’s Trs (*)
5 1/4 year old girl. Opened rear door of minibus, ran across road and was struck by a lorry. Driver negligent as knew some children would get off before he said but he took no steps to stop this. Said also some liability on the part of the girl. 20% REDUCTION.
POL: “What would be reasonably expected of a child of that age and with the knowledge and experience of the pursuer.”- MAXWELL.
Relevant factors: 1) Average intelligence for age, 2) Received parental instruction on the dangers, 3) Some experience of heavy traffic 4) express warning by minibus driver.
LAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE) ACT 1945
PARTIAL DEFENCE- the amount of compensation payable to victim of wrongs is reduced by percentage of the total award where the victim is partly to blame for personal injury.
