Defences

Question 1

Volenti non fit injuria

Answer 1

Voluntary assumption of risk – No injury is done to a willing person

Question 2

Morris v Murray

Answer 2

Volenti - pilot case
C&D drunk, pilot aircraft. D (pilot) dies, C injured. Volenti can apply in negligence, if the act could be anticipated by C. Here: D pilot glaringly drunk + Facts: C capable of understanding

Question 3

ICI v Shatwell

Answer 3

Volenti - Brothers and explosion;
Cs acted against regulations and employer’s instructions. Volenti usually not applicable in employment context (£ reality), but case shows defence is available is some cases. Here: no liability

Question 4

Woldridge v Sumner

Answer 4

Horse show photographer case. On the issue of Volenti: Consent to the risk ≠ Volenti. → Volenti = Consent to the BoD with knowledge of nature and extent of the risk

Question 5

Reeves v Metropolitan Police Commissioner

Answer 5

Prisoner suicide. Very thing they were supposed to prevent. Volenti Defence does not apply.

Question 6

Jones v Livox Quarries

Answer 6

CN; leg injury traxcavator: C rides on back of traxcavator w/out driver’s knowledge, against rules. Truck reckless, crash, C’s legs amputated. Denning: Here the csq were not foreseeable. Negligence depends on foreseeability, but its csq on causation. C’s acts are of one the causes + so mixed w/ injury, that party C’s fault.

Question 7

St George v Home Office

Answer 7

CN, drug addiction too remote to brain damage
Lifestyle choices (drug addiction) too remote in time, place, circumstances to be a cause of injury (prison staff negligence)

Question 8

Froom v Butcher

Answer 8

Car accident. D negligent, but C not wearing seat belt. Denning: cause of accident ≠ cause of damage. C partly caused the damage, 20% reduction.
Blameworthiness of the factor. Asses a share of responsibility.

Assessment of blame (just/equitable)

Question 9

Ex turpi causa non oritur action

Answer 9

Illegality – From a dishonourable cause an action does not arise a claim

Question 10

Gray v Thames Train

Answer 10

Ex turpi; C victim of train crash (D negligent), developed PTSD. C is later convicted of manslaughter. Sued D on various grounds.
- Narrow rule: C can’t recover damage resulting from his criminal sentence
→Criminal conviction shouldn’t be compensated in tort (policy) - Wide rule: C can’t recover damage which is the
consequence of his criminal act
→ C shouldn’t be compensated for csq of his criminal acts

Question 11

Revill v Newberry

Answer 11

Ex turpi; D shot two burglars. D could not rely on Illegality. Burglars showed no intention to be physically violent. Deny C benefit from illegality ≠ deprive him of compensation. OLA 1984: burglars rights. (2/3 contributory negligence)

Question 12

Pitts v Hunt

Answer 12

C&D drunk on motorcycle. C knew D had no licence/insurance. D dies, C sues personal representatives. Claim failed, but:

• Volenti barred by statute
• Ex turpi causa precludes imposition of DoC

Question 13

Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex

Answer 13

Ex turpi; Pharmaceutical patent war. No Illegality. Defence of illegality should only apply to criminal acts and quasi-criminal acts (corruption + ≠ public interest). Not in private sphere.

Question 14

White v Blackmore

Answer 14

Old car racing. C died. D successfully excluded liability (now wouldn’t work UCTA). Volenti unsuccessful (no consent to negligently constructed ropes)