Defences Flashcards
Smith v Baker (1891)
IMPLIED CONSENT:
C was employed by D to work at quarry. Crane would swing heavy stones over his head. He complained a lot about this. One of the stones hit his head. Employer did not succeed in defence of volenti as C had consented to the risk and not the harm.
ICI v Shatwell (1965)
EMPLOYERS/EMPLOYEES:
2 brothers were employed as shot firers in D’s quarry. They did not follow correct safety procedures which resulted in both of them being injured. Employers were not negligent as they had breached explicit instructions of employer.
Morris v Murray (1991)
ROAD TRAFFIC ACT:
C and D spent afternoon drinking. C then agreed to accompany D in his plane. Plane crashed D died and C was injured. Volenti applied as C got into the plane knowing and consenting to the risk.
Salmon v Seafarers’ Restaurants (1983)
RESCUERS:
C who was a fireman was injured when putting out a chip shop fire caused by the owners negligence. Volenti did not apply and the fireman was successful in his claim.
Condon v Basi (1985)
SPORTS:
C and D were in an amateur football match. C was awarded damages after sustaining serious injury following D’s bad tackle. Consent did not apply as D had acted outside the rules of the game. Went beyond what was reasonable.
Jones v Livox Quarries Ltd (1952)
NATURE & EFFECT:
C was injured at work while standing on a tow-bar on back of a vehicle. A colleague in another vehicle negligently drove into the back of C’s vehicle. It was found that C was unlawfully riding the tow-bar so could not have damages as it was his fault.
Froom v Butcher (1976)
LAW REFORM:
C was in a collision when D’s car which was speeding AND on the wrong side of the road crashed into C. However, C was not wearing a seatbelt and suffered more serious injuries due to this. Was not able to claim.
Yachuk v Oliver Blais & Co. (1949)
STANDARD OF CARE:
9 year old boy bought petrol from D and was badly burnt while playing with it. D’s were negligent in selling petrol to him. No contributory negligence as he was too young to appreciate the dangers.
Evans v Souls Garage (2000)
STANDARD OF CARE:
13 yo was burned while playing with petrol. Damages were reduced by a third as he could appreciate the danger.
Brannon v Airtours (1999)
STANDARD OF CARE:
D holiday company organised entertainment evening with UNLIMITED FREE wine and excessive drinking was encouraged. C was injured when he hit a ceiling fan despite being told not to. D’s were still liable as they encouraged the drinking. However C still had contributory negligence as D’s told C not to,
Owens v Brimmel (1977)
DRUNK DRIVERS:
C and D had been on a pub crawl before D attempted to drive home. During the drive, the car left the road and C was seriously injured. Claimant was found to be 20% negligent. He knew that D was drunk.
Fitzgerald v Lane (1989)
MULTIPLE D’S:
C was injured when he crossed road when it wasn’t safe. Was hit by 2 different negligent drivers. All these parties were equally negligent.
