Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

TORT > DEFENCES > Flashcards

DEFENCES Flashcards

1
Q

WHAT IS THE CHARACTERISTIC FEATURE OF A DEFENCE?

A

Once the claim is prima facie proved by the claimant, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to show (on the balance of probabilities) that there is something wrong with the claim

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

WHAT IS THE FUNCTION OF A DEFENCE TO A NEGLIGENCE CLAIM?

A

To reduce or eliminate the defendant’s liability for the damage suffered by the claimant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

WHAT ARE THE TWO COMMON LAW DEFENCES?

A
  1. Ex turpi causa non oritur actio (criminal act)
  2. Volenti non fit injuria (consent)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

WHAT DOES EX TURPI CAUSA MEAN?

A

No legal action can arise from a blameworthy cause.

This means that a claimant who is involved in a criminal act at the time they were injured may be held not to have cause of action.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

WHAT TYPE OF DEFENCE IS THE EX TURPI CAUSA DEFENCE?

A

A complete defence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

WHEN WILL AN EX TURPI CAUSA DEFENCE FAIL ON THE GROUND IF ILLEGALITY?

A
  • There is a very close connection between the illegal activity of the claimant and;
  • The injury which they suffer; and
  • The damage arises directly out of the illegal activity; and
  • It would be contrary to public policy to allow the claimant a remedy
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

WHAT IS THE ‘INEXTRICABLE LINK’ TEST IN RESPECT OF THE EX TURPI CAUSA DEFENCE?

A

For the defence to apply, there must be an inextricable link between the criminal act and the loss claimed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

WHAT DOES VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA MEAN?

A

No injury can be done to a willing person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

WHAT TYPE OF DEFENCE IS THE VOLENTI DEFENCE?

A

A complete defence

It applies when the defendant can show that the claimant voluntarily consented, with knowledge of the risk, to the injury or the possibility of injury

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

WHAT MUST THE DEFENDANT SHOW FOR A DEFENCE OF VOLENTI?

A

That the claimant knew of the risks to which their conduct exposed them

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

IS THE DEFENCE OF VOLENTI APPLICABLE IN AN EMPLOYMENT SITUATION?

A

The defence may be applicable if the employer can establish that the employee had agreed to, and taken part in, the dangerous activity with full awareness of the risks

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

IS THE DEFENCE OF VOLENTI APPLICABLE IN RESCUE SITUATIONS?

A

No.

In rescue situations, a person put into a position where they feel morally or legally obliged to rescue someone else does not freely consent to the risk of injury

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

IS THE DEFENCE APPLICABLE TO VOLUNTARY PARTICIPANTS IN SPORTS?

A

Yes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

ON THE WHOLE, WHEN DOES THE COURT TEND TO ACCEPT THE DEFENCE OF VOLENTI?

A

In extreme cases such as Morris v Murray [1990]

In this case, the claimant accepted the risk of injury by going up in an aeroplane in poor visibility with a pilot whom he knew to have drunk the equivalent of 17 shots of whiskey.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

WHEN DOES THE DEFENCE OF VOLENTI NOT APPLY?

A

The defence of volenti cannot be used against passengers travelling in road vehicles (s149 Road Traffic Act 1988)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

WHAT TYPE OF DEFENCE IS CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE?

A

A partial defence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

WHAT DOES THE LAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE) ACT 1945 SAY ABOUT CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE?

A

If the damage caused by the negligence of the defendant was partly caused or increased by the negligence of the claimant, damages may be apportioned so that the claimant only gets part of their damages

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

WHAT DOES THE DEFENDANT NEED TO PROVE TO ESTABLISH CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE?

A

That the claimant acted carelessly and failed to take reasonable care for their own safety

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

WHEN WILL CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE BE ESTABLISHED?

A
  1. If the claimant is partly to blame for the accident in which they are injured
  2. If the claimant puts themselves in a dangerous position which exposes them to the risk of involvement in the accident in which they are harmed
  3. If the claimant does not increase the risk of injury, but their failure to take reasonable care for their own safety increases the extent of the injury suffered
20
Q

WHAT DID FROOM AND OTHERS V BUTCHER [1975] HOLD IN RESPECT OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE INVOLVING CAR PASSENGERS?

A

A car driver who had not been wearing a seat belt (at a time where seat belts were optional) should have his damages reduced by 25% as his head and chest injuries would have been avoided, or their extent reduced, if he was wearing a seatbelt

21
Q

WHEN DID THE LAW CHANGE IN RESPECT OF SEAR BELTS?

A

In 1986 by statutory instrument which makes it compulsory for adults to wear seat belts in cars

22
Q

WHEN WILL THE COURTS BE RELUCTANT TO HOLD THAT A CLAIMANT WAS CONTRIBUTORILY NEGLIGENT?

A
  1. Where the claimant is a child
  2. Where the claimant is an employee
  3. Where the claimant was a rescuer
  4. The court accepts that the claimant was in a difficult situation – this is known as the dilemma principle
  5. If a persons ‘contribution’ to their potential injuries is foreseeable to someone who has a duty of care towards them
23
Q

WHAT IS A LIMITATION PERIOD?

A

The period in which claims must be made

24
Q

WHAT IS THE LIMITATION PERIOD IN TORT LAW?

A

S2 Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) specifies that, in general, the limitation period for a claim in tort is six years from the date on which the claimant’s cause of action arose

25
Q

WHAT TYPE OF DEFENCE IS A LIMITATION PERIOD?

A

A complete defence

26
Q

WHEN DOES THE LIMITATION PERIOD START IF THE CLAIMANT IS UNDER A DISABILITY

A

When the claimant either ceases to be under the disability or dies (s28(1) Limitation Act 1980)

27
Q

WHAT IS THE MOST COMMON FORM OF BEING UNDER A DISABILITY IN RESPECT OF LIMITATION PERIODS?

A

This is identified in s38(2) LA 1980 as being an infant – aged under 18.

The time limit for a personal injury claim in respect of a child does not start until either child reaches 18 or dies

27
Q

WHAT IS THE MOST COMMON FORM OF BEING UNDER A DISABILITY IN RESPECT OF LIMITATION PERIODS?

A

This is identified in s38(2) LA 1980 as being an infant – aged under 18.

The time limit for a personal injury claim in respect of a child does not start until either child reaches 18 or dies

28
Q

IF SOMEONE IS PERMANENTLY BRAIN DAMAGED, WHEN CAN A CLAIM BE STARTED?

A

At any time before their death as they remain under a disability for the rest of their life (Maga v Roman Catholica Archdiocese of Birmingham [2010])

29
Q

WHEN WILL A CLAIM BE STATUTE-BARRED?

A

When the specified time elapses

30
Q

WHAT IS THE LIMITATION PERIOD IN PERSONAL INJURY CASES?

A

Three years from the date on which the cause of the action arose which is the latest date of:

  • The wrongdoing occurring
  • The injury being sustained
  • The claimant having knowledge of the injury (s11(4) Limitation Act 1980)
31
Q

WHAT IS THE DATE OF KNOWLEDGE IN RESPECT OF PERSONAL INJURY CASES?

A

S14 Limitation Act 1980 defines ‘date of knowledge’ as the date when the claimant first knew that the injury was significant, that it was caused by the defendant’s actions and is able to identify who the defendant is

31
Q

WHAT IS THE DATE OF KNOWLEDGE IN RESPECT OF PERSONAL INJURY CASES?

A

S14 Limitation Act 1980 defines ‘date of knowledge’ as the date when the claimant first knew that the injury was significant, that it was caused by the defendant’s actions and is able to identify who the defendant is

32
Q

WHAT DID HAWARD AND OTHERS V FAWCETTS (A FIRM) AND ANOTHER [2006] HOLD IN RESPECT OF DATE OF KNOWLEDGE IN RESPECT OF PERSONAL INJURY CASES?

A

When deciding the date of knowledge of the facts which would have justified the claimant bringing a claim of negligence, the relevant date is not when the claimant first knew that had a claim but the earlier date when they first knew enough to begin investigating the possibility that the defendant might have been negligent

33
Q

WHAT IS THE LIMITATION PERIOD WHEN THE CLAIMANT DIES AS A RESULT OF THE DEFENDANT’S ACTION?

A

Within three years of the cause of action arising

A fresh three-year period commences in favour of the claimants personal representatives or dependants

34
Q

WHAT IS THE LIMITATION PERIOD WHEN THE CLAIMANT DIES AS A RESULT OF THE TORT BUT DOES NOT DISCOVER THEY HAD A CAUSE OF ACTION?

A

The fresh period starts on the later of the date of death and the date on which the personal representative or dependants had the knowledge necessary to bring a claim

35
Q

WHAT IS LATENT DAMAGE?

A

Damage that is not apparent – such as damage to the foundations of a house

36
Q

IN RESPECT OF LATENT DAMAGE, THE CLAIMANT HAS THE LONGER OF WHAT WHEN BRINGING A CLAIM?

A
  • The normal six-year period, starting when the damage was done; and
  • A three-year period that begins when the claimant discovered or ought to have discovered the damage
37
Q

IN RESPECT OF LATENT DAMAGE, WHEN CAN A CLAIM NO LONGER BE MADE?

A

No claim can be raised more than 15 years after the date of the defendant’s negligence

38
Q

WHAT IS AN EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION CLAUSE?

A

They attempt to exonerate potential defendants to a negligence claim, or one of the parties to a contract from damage or injury to the other

39
Q

PRIOR TO 2015, WHAT PIECE OF LEGISLATION WERE EXEMPTION CLAUSES SUBJECT TO?

A

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

40
Q

POST 2015, WHAT PIECE OF LEGISLATION WERE EXEMPTION CLAUSES SUBJECT TO?

A

Consumer Rights Act 2015

41
Q

WHAT DOES S65 CONSUMER RIGHTS ACT 2015 / S2(1) UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ACT 1977 STATE IN RESPECT OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES?

A

A trader cannot exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence

42
Q

WHAT DOES S62 CONSUMER RIGHTS ACT 2015 STATE IN RESPECT OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES?

A

A consumer is not bound by a term excluding or restricting liability for property damage if it is unfair.

43
Q

WHAT DOES S2(2) UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ACT 1977 STATE IN RESPECT OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES?

A

Requires an assessment of the clause’s reasonableness.

The reasonableness test is defined in s11 UCTA 1977:

TORT (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions