Defences Flashcards
Kirkham v CC of Greater Manchester
CAPACITY TO GIVE VALID CONSENT
Facts?
- C was prisoner in police custody who committed suicide.
Principle?
- Police argued volenti which failed as evidence that C was not of sound mind meant he did not have capacity to consent to risk associated with suicide.
Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
CAPACITY TO GIVE VALID CONSENT
Facts?
- Again, suicide of prisoner in police station. Police aware he was suicide risk.
Principle?
- Ds could not argue violent as this was the very action they were required by their DOC to prevent.
Morris v Murrary
FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE RISKS
Facts? - C accepted lift with a drunk pilot. - C was also drunk. - Did he appreciate the danger? Principle? - C was not so drunk he was incapable of understanding nature/extent of risk - willingly embarked on flight knowing D was drunk and likely to be negligent.
- Also relevant to agreement to risk of injury - this was equivalent to ‘meddling with an unexploded bomb’.
Nettleship v Weston
AGREEMENT TO RISK OF INJURY
Facts?
- Claimant was driving instructor who sued pupil for injuries caused by pupil’s negligent driving.
Principle?
- Fact he knew she was learner driver did not mean he consented to being injured by her.
- He asked her about insurance cover before agreeing to lessons - not consenting to risk of injury.
Dann v Hamilton
Facts?
- Claimant accepted lift with someone she knew was drunk.
- No consent due to know knowledge of the risk of injury, but no implied agreement either unless risk so extreme it is equivalent to ‘meddling with an unexploded bomb’.
- Risk of injury must be so incredibly likely to materialise that by agreeing to take part int he activity, C consents to the risk.
Ratcliffe v McConnell
Facts?
- Drunken student dived into swimming pool having not checked its depth.
- Implied agreement to run risk of injury established here.
Bowater v Rowley Regis Corporation
AGREEMENT TO RISK MUST BE VOLUNTARY
- C is not willing unless in a position to choose freely - freedom of choice predicates both full knowledge of the circumstances AND absence of any feeling of constraint (freedom of will).
ICI v Shatwell
- Employee held to have consented voluntarily to the risk of using shorter wires although regulations said to use longer wires.
Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing Club
Facts?
- C injured while watching a race.
Principle?
- Claim failed because spectators consent to the risks attached with spectating a sport. Inherent to the sport.
Smoldon v Whitworth
- Court said participants of sporting events consent to the normal risks of the game.
Condon v Basi
Facts?
- Footballer held liable for breaking another player’s leg in foul tackle.
Principle?
- Defence of consent failed because D’s serious/dangerous foul tackle showed reckless disregard for C’s safety - C had not consented to the tackle.
- C unlikely to have consented to something outside the rules of the game.
Baker v T.E. Hopkins & SOns
Facts?
- Baker held to be rescuer when he helped some workmen trapped in a mine.
- He was killed by the poisonous fumes in the mine.
Principle?
- He had the capacity and knowledge of nature and extent of risk.
- Agreement not voluntary though, acted out of compulsive desire to save life.
Jones v Livox Quarries
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Facts?
- C was riding on the tow bar of a vehicle involved in accident.
Principle?
- For finding of contributory negligence, there are three elements to establish.
1. C failed to take reasonable steps for own safety.
2. Failure contributed to C’s injury.
3. Injury was within type of risk run by claimant. - Also authority for injury being within risk run by C.
- C ran risk he would fall from vehicle if he rode in unsuitable position.
- Would not have bene contributorily negligent if struck by rock whilst on tow bar, as that was not the risk he was running - that would not be connected to why what he was doing was unreasonable.
Froom v Butcher
Facts?
- Wearing of seatbelt not compulsory.
Principle?
- C contributorily negligent because it was imprudent not to wear one and failure to do so contributed to C’s injuries.
Jones v Boyce
Facts?
- Runaway horse and carriage case.
- C jumped from it.
Principle?
- Not negligent.
- Reasonably believed coach was going to overturn so jumped from it and broke his leg.
Sayers v Harlow
Facts?
- C got stuck in D’s toilet cubicle.
- Tried to escape through gap between door and ceiling and on her way down stood on toilet roll holder.
- Fell and injured herself.
Principle?
- Damages reduced by 25% - failed to take reasonable care by attempting to rely on unstable toilet roll.
John James William Booth v Simon White
Facts?
- Both D and C had been drinking in pub.
- C consumed between 10-15 pints of lager.
- D offered C a lift, lost control, crashed and C suffered serious injury.
Principle?
- Although C not required to interrogate D as to how much he has drank, required to make assessment of driver considering whether to accept lift.
- In circumstances, given C’s intoxication, unable to make reliable assessment. No reduction for CN.
Gough v Thorne
Facts?
- 13 year old girl hit by lorry driven by D when crossing road.
- Earlier driver indicated to her it was safe.
Principle?
- Taking into account her age, no CN.
Jackson v Murray
Facts?
- 13 year old suffered serious injuries when she ran out from behind bus she alighted and was struck by D.
Principle?
- Held that she was main cause of accident.
- C and D found equally blameworthy in the end (after 90, then 70), so damages reduced by 50%.
Ashton v Turner
- Compensation denied to passenger injured by his getaway driver after being involved in a burglary.
Marsh v Pauline Clare (Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary)
- Crimes of knowingly participating in corruption/intentional handling of stolen cars - serious enough for defence of Ex Turpi to succeed.
Pitts v Hunt
Facts?
- C and D had been drinking together, both very drunk.
- C rode on back of D’s motorbike encouraging reckless driving.
Principle?
- Defence successful in that C’s injury was caused directly by the illegal act - would have been an affront to public conscience to award claimant damages.
Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester
Facts?
- Police arrived at C’s flat and arrested.
- C jumped from second floor window.
- Injured.
Principle?
- No DOC existed and in breaking away from custody, C committing crime anyway.
- Ex turpi would likely apply because C had to rely on his criminal act to file negligence claim.
Key features of the defence highlighted:
- Claimant’s claim is founded on his criminal/immoral act.
- Public policy principle - not for benefit of defendant.
- Criminal conduct must be sufficiently serious to merit application of the principle.
Delaney v Pickett
Facts?
- C injured in accident due to D’s negligent driving.
- Found to be carrying large packet of cannabis which C and D were going to sell.
Principle?
- Ex turnip failed because C’s injury not caused BY his illegal act.
Joyce v O’Brien
Facts?
- C in back of D’s van holding stolen ladders which prevented him closing for.
- D’s negligent driving meant C fell from vehicle and suffered serious head injury.
Principle?
- Ex turpi succeeded - C’s head injuries caused by criminal act.
Gray v Thames Trains
Facts?
- C suffered loss due to Ladbroke rail crash.
- Suffered PTSD and ended up stabbing total stranger.
- Tried to claim loss of earnings.
Principle?
- Causal link - D’s negligence train crash that caused him to stab stranger and have earnings taken away.
