Defences Flashcards
Contributory Negligence
Partial Defence.
Old Common law concept that if due to your own negligence the accident was caused you would not get any damages from the other individual who supposedly caused it.
Current UK decision is that compensation is reduced when a victims wrong contributed to the injury
Contributory Negligence Cases
Florence v Mann - Elevator, fault on both parts so compensation reduced
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 S1(1) - suffers damage partly due to their own fault…damages shall be reduced
Reeves v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis - Suicide risk, they knew but intentional acts can constitute as fault in CN
Mitchell v Hutchinson - Seat Belts, woman better off not wearing seat belt, but husband would have been so he had reduced compensation.
Stanley v Gypsum Mines Ltd - Miner check roof, 80% reduction due to them continuing to choose to work there. Look into blameworthiness and causal potency.
St George v Home Office - Drug abuse there is blameworthiness, but not casual potency
Gough v Thorne - 13 year old, lorry hit by car, reasonable to rely on driver
Banner’s Trust v Kennedy’s Trs - 5 year old stepped off car, 20% reduction
Jackson v Murray - 13 year old stepped off bus, eventually 50/50 blame
Volenti Non Fit Injuria
Complete Defence. A legal wrong done to one who is not willing.
Smith v Charles Baker & Sons - Construction site, needs to be more than mere knowledge of the risk.
Dann v Hamilton - Drunk driver, got into car. Not Volenti as was not drunk enough
Morris v Murray - Drunk flying a plane, danger so obvious that you’d just know that it was a dangerous idea
Can’t be used when person is a rescuer Baker v Hopkins & Sons
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Complete defence. No right of action comes from a shameful cause.
Weir v Wyper - 16 year old in car with someone no license, clear it is illegal
Taylor v Leslie - Borrow car illegally but conduct not surprising for the area
Joyce v O’Brien - Ladders in van, not reasonable for one criminal to be responsible for another
Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
PI claims brought within 3 years, or 3 years of noticing it or reasonably practicable for them to realise that: injuries were sufficient to cause an action, attributed to the action. Court has a little discretion though -
Bates v George - Legal firm forget
Comber v Glasgow City Health Board - Surgery went wrong and then could sue years later
