Defences

Question 1

Kirkham v CC Greater Manchester

Answer 1

Suicide risk - did not have capacity to consent (no free choice)

Question 2

Reeves v Metropolitan Police

Answer 2

Cannot use volenti as a defence to an act they were required by their duty of care to prevent
Suicide does not amount to ex turpi
Damages reduced by 50% due to contrib neg

Question 3

Morris v Murray

Answer 3

Must have knowledge of the nature and extent of risks (subjective)
Getting in a plane with a drunk pilot was so likely to cause injury that they had implied agreed to the risk
Claimant was not so drunk as to not appreciate the risks

Question 4

Nettleship v Weston

Answer 4

Must be more than knowledge of the risks, must amount to clear agreement between the parties
Getting in a car with a learner driver, while knowledgeable of the risks, is not consenting to negligent driving

Question 5

Dann v Hamilton

Answer 5

Claimant accepted life from drunk defendant - risk was not ‘akin to meddling with an unexploded bomb’ that she had consented to it

Question 6

Ratcliffe v McConnell

Answer 6

Drunken student dived into swimming pool without checking depth - risk of injury was so great he had impliedly agreed

Question 7

Sacco v CC South Wales Constabulary

Answer 7

17 year old claimant injured after jumping from police van - drunkenness did not negate volenti (voluntary intoxication)

Question 8

Hall v Broooklands Auto Racing Club

Answer 8

Spectator was injured - might have consented to normal dangers inherent in sport but not those due to negligence and faulty equipment

Question 9

Smoldon v Whitworth

Answer 9

Claims was brought against a negligent referee - players did not consent to negligent refereeing of the match

Question 10

Baker v Hopkins

Answer 10

Agreement has to be voluntary - rescuers are deemed to have reacted instinctively and therefore consent does not apply

Question 11

Haynes v Harwood

Answer 11

Claimant was injured trying to recapture a bolting horse - had not consented to the risk of injury as he reacted instinctively to effect a rescu

Question 12

Ogwo v Taylor

Answer 12

Fireman was injured in the course of their duties - no consent (rescuer plus employment context)

Question 13

Cutler v United Dairies

Answer 13

Claimant who is merely interfering in a non-urgent situation (not a rescuer) might be volens

Question 14

Bowater v Rowley Regis Corporation

Answer 14

Volens unlikely to apply in employment context - consent is not freely given

Question 15

ICI v Shatwell

Answer 15

Volenti may apply if completely consensual with no pressure - claimant worked with his brother and had both decided to use shorter wires than advised for testing shot firers

Question 16

Ashton v Turner

Answer 16

Compensation denied to a passenger injured in a getaway after he had been involved in a burglary

Question 17

Marsh v Caultin Clare

Answer 17

Knowingly participating in corruption and handling of stolen cars were considered serious enough for ex turpi to succeed

Question 18

Pitts v Hunt

Answer 18

Limed application of ex turnip - claimant was not denied a remedy when both injured in drunken road accident merely because activity was illegal

Question 19

Vellino v CC Greater Manchester

Answer 19

Claim failed for lack of duty between police and claimant (repeatedly arrested and jumped out of the window every time), but ex turpi would have succeeded - affront to public conscience test

Question 20

Nayyer v Denton Wilde Sapte

Answer 20

Can involve morally reprehensible civil conduct, not just criminal actions

Question 21

Safeways Stores v Twigger

Answer 21

Anti-competitive behaviour (not criminal)

Claimant’s illegal activity must be causally related to the loss

Question 22

Delaney v Pickett

Answer 22

Claimant injured in car crash when delivering cannabis - ex turpi failed because it did not cause the accident, merely provided the occasion for the injury

Question 23

Gray v Thames Traines

Answer 23

There must be a nexus between the tortfeasor’s negligence and the criminal offence they are undertaking

Question 24

Jones v Livox

Answer 24

Not supposed to give lifts on the back of forklifts - claimant was injured
A person is guilty of contributory negligence if he out reasonably to have foreseen that if he did not act as a reasonable prudent ma, he might be hurt himself
Did claimant’s act have a material impact on the outcome?
Injury must be within the risk run by the claimant

Question 25

Cavendish Funding v Henry Spence

Answer 25

Obvious incorrect valuation should have put the claimant on alert - damages reduced by contributory negligence

Question 26

Froom v Butcher

Answer 26

Claimant did not wear a seatbelt - must take the same degree of care that a reasonable person would take (objective standard) - does not matter if claimant did not act illegally
Damages reduced by 25% if wearing a seatbelt would have prevented injury

Question 27

O’Connell v Jackson

Answer 27

Claimant failed to wear crash helmet

Question 28

Capps v Miler

Answer 28

Claimant failed to wear crash helmet properly

Question 29

Jones v Boyce

Answer 29

Allowances are made for the claimant who has been placed in an emergency situation - claimant jumped from a runaway horse and carriage - damages not reduced via contributory negligence as it was a reasonable attempt to avoid the danger created by the defendant

Question 30

Sayers v Harlow UDC

Answer 30

Claimant was trapped in public toilet - tried to climb out by standing on a toilet roll dispenser - not unreasonable given she was trapped, but damages reduced since it was a pretty stupid thing to do

Question 31

Gough v Thorne

Answer 31

13 year old crossed a road without checking and was injured - not fair to judge her by the standards of an adult and hold her contributory negligent

Question 32

Yachuk v Oliver Blais

Answer 32

9 year old bought petrol which exploded - too young to understand the dangers of exploding petrol so contributory negligence was not allowed

Question 33

Harrison v BRB

Answer 33

Rescuers are not protected from contributory negligence if they negligently helped create the situation in the first place

Question 34

Stapley v Gypsum Mines

Answer 34

Must be a causal link between the claimant’s actions and the contribution to the loss
Claimant did not check the safety of the mine