Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Delict > Defences > Flashcards

Defences Flashcards

1
Q

Jackson v Murray

A
  • driver at fault but damages reduced to take account of girls failure to take account of road safety
  • 50% fixed contributory negligence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Sayers

A
  • toilet incident
  • contributory negligence 25%
  • recklessness in trying to escape not so extreme to remove council’s negligence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Requirements of contributory negligence?

A
  1. did pursuer take reasonable care for his/her own safety?

2. did failure to do so constitute a “substantial cause”?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Hill v Chivers

A
  • damages reduced by 1/3 for not weaing seatbelt as this would have reduced injuries
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Pace v Cully

A
  • exceptionally no contributory negligence for failing to wear seatbelt
  • police had advised local taxi drivers not to wear belt
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Currie v Clamp Exec.

A
  • getting into car with knowledge of drunk driver recognised as contributory negligence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Galbraith’s Curator v Stewart

A
  • G and 8 year old playing on pipes in night
  • no contributory negligence
  • 8 year old could not weigh up harm
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Anderson v Imrie

A
  • farm gate incident
  • 25% contributory negligence
  • 8 year old had sufficient understanding to realise danger
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Jackson v Murray

A
  • 13 year old should be aware of dangers of crossing road
  • original 90% contributory negligence reduced to 70% then 50%
  • SC couldn’t find satisfactory explanation in reasoning
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Reeves v Commissioner of Police of MET

A
  • police sued for negligence - death in police custody
  • contributory negligence includes intentional acts
  • deliberate act of death = damages reduced
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Pitt v Hunt

A
  • percentage reduction attributable to pursuers contributory negligence
  • appropriate apportionment according to relative fault of defenders
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Fitzgerald v Lane

A
  • pedestrian struck twice (relative fault 50/50)
  • joint and several liability
  • plaintiff could opt to pursue one of defenders for whole amount
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is volenti fit iniura?

A
  • defence that pursuer exprelly or impliedly consented to risk of injury
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Titchener v British Railways

A
  • no volenti defence

- 15 year old admitted she knew dangers of crossing railway track

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Morris v Murray

A
  • pilot crashed, passenger injured: drink involved
  • defence of volenti stood
  • M could appreciate risk
  • in company whilst drinking
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Reeves v Commissioner

A
  • police attempted volenti defence
  • illogical, contrary to public policy to prevent them from duty
  • police had specific duty to look after known suicide risk
17
Q

Corr v IBC

A
  • employers negligence brought him to suicidal state, no scope of volenti defence
  • employer tried to invoke volenti defence which was thrown out
18
Q

What is illegality?

A
  • pursuer and defender engaged together in criminal or dishonourable enterprise
  • pursuer alone engaging in criminal or dishonourable enterprise
19
Q

Joyce v O’Brien

A
  • illegality upheld (van robbery)
  • forseeable unsual/increased risks of harm
  • injury caused by criminal act
20
Q

McLaughlin v Morrison

A
  • defenders actions, not pursuers had most causal impact
  • illegality defence rejected
  • defender drove at pursuer allegedly involved in earlier pub attack (unrelated incidents)
21
Q

Revill v Newberry

A
  • allotment vandalism not inextricably bound with being shot at
  • R successfully sued for damages (2/3 contributory negligence)
22
Q

Gray v Thames Trains Ltd

A
  • weighing up whether it is the defenders wrongdoing or pursuers illegal act which has the greater causal impact
  • TT were liable to compensate after injury but before manslaughter
23
Q

When does prescription period run?

A

Period runs from date damage occured. Suggested changes: runs only when knowledge of loss, injury, damage caused by certain person

24
Q

Can limitation period be extended?

A

Yes, in relation to personal injury, death, defamation:

  • time elapsed
  • consequent loss of evidence
  • difficulties with investigation
25
Q

Agnew v Scott Lithgow

A
  • vibration white finger

- inexcusable delay in proceedings notwithstanding late diagnosis

26
Q

Young v Borders Health Board

A
  • no excuse outwith timebar

- knew of misdiagnosis immediately

27
Q

Elliot v J and C Finney

A
  • hospitalisation period still counted

- court suggested that enquiries could be made on behalf

Delict (8 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions