Defences Flashcards
Kirkham v CC Greater Manchester
Suicide risk - did not have capacity to consent (no free choice)
Reeves v Metropolitan Police
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
Morris v Murray
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
Nettleship v Weston
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
Dann v Hamilton
Claimant accepted life from drunk defendant - risk was not ‘akin to meddling with an unexploded bomb’ that she had consented to it
Ratcliffe v McConnell
Drunken student dived into swimming pool without checking depth - risk of injury was so great he had impliedly agreed
Sacco v CC South Wales Constabulary
17 year old claimant injured after jumping from police van - drunkenness did not negate volenti (voluntary intoxication)
Hall v Broooklands Auto Racing Club
Spectator was injured - might have consented to normal dangers inherent in sport but not those due to negligence and faulty equipment
Smoldon v Whitworth
Claims was brought against a negligent referee - players did not consent to negligent refereeing of the match
Baker v Hopkins
Agreement has to be voluntary - rescuers are deemed to have reacted instinctively and therefore consent does not apply
Haynes v Harwood
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
Ogwo v Taylor
Fireman was injured in the course of their duties - no consent (rescuer plus employment context)
Cutler v United Dairies
Claimant who is merely interfering in a non-urgent situation (not a rescuer) might be volens
Bowater v Rowley Regis Corporation
Volens unlikely to apply in employment context - consent is not freely given
ICI v Shatwell
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
Ashton v Turner
Compensation denied to a passenger injured in a getaway after he had been involved in a burglary
Marsh v Caultin Clare
Knowingly participating in corruption and handling of stolen cars were considered serious enough for ex turpi to succeed
Pitts v Hunt
Limed application of ex turnip - claimant was not denied a remedy when both injured in drunken road accident merely because activity was illegal
Vellino v CC Greater Manchester
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
Nayyer v Denton Wilde Sapte
Can involve morally reprehensible civil conduct, not just criminal actions
Safeways Stores v Twigger
Anti-competitive behaviour (not criminal)
Claimant’s illegal activity must be causally related to the loss
Delaney v Pickett
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
Gray v Thames Traines
There must be a nexus between the tortfeasor’s negligence and the criminal offence they are undertaking
Jones v Livox
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
