Defences Flashcards
Jackson v Murray
- driver at fault but damages reduced to take account of girls failure to take account of road safety
- 50% fixed contributory negligence
Sayers
- toilet incident
- contributory negligence 25%
- recklessness in trying to escape not so extreme to remove council’s negligence
Requirements of contributory negligence?
- did pursuer take reasonable care for his/her own safety?
2. did failure to do so constitute a “substantial cause”?
Hill v Chivers
- damages reduced by 1/3 for not weaing seatbelt as this would have reduced injuries
Pace v Cully
- exceptionally no contributory negligence for failing to wear seatbelt
- police had advised local taxi drivers not to wear belt
Currie v Clamp Exec.
- getting into car with knowledge of drunk driver recognised as contributory negligence
Galbraith’s Curator v Stewart
- G and 8 year old playing on pipes in night
- no contributory negligence
- 8 year old could not weigh up harm
Anderson v Imrie
- farm gate incident
- 25% contributory negligence
- 8 year old had sufficient understanding to realise danger
Jackson v Murray
- 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
Reeves v Commissioner of Police of MET
- police sued for negligence - death in police custody
- contributory negligence includes intentional acts
- deliberate act of death = damages reduced
Pitt v Hunt
- percentage reduction attributable to pursuers contributory negligence
- appropriate apportionment according to relative fault of defenders
Fitzgerald v Lane
- pedestrian struck twice (relative fault 50/50)
- joint and several liability
- plaintiff could opt to pursue one of defenders for whole amount
What is volenti fit iniura?
- defence that pursuer exprelly or impliedly consented to risk of injury
Titchener v British Railways
- no volenti defence
- 15 year old admitted she knew dangers of crossing railway track
Morris v Murray
- pilot crashed, passenger injured: drink involved
- defence of volenti stood
- M could appreciate risk
- in company whilst drinking
Reeves v Commissioner
- police attempted volenti defence
- illogical, contrary to public policy to prevent them from duty
- police had specific duty to look after known suicide risk
Corr v IBC
- employers negligence brought him to suicidal state, no scope of volenti defence
- employer tried to invoke volenti defence which was thrown out
What is illegality?
- pursuer and defender engaged together in criminal or dishonourable enterprise
- pursuer alone engaging in criminal or dishonourable enterprise
Joyce v O’Brien
- illegality upheld (van robbery)
- forseeable unsual/increased risks of harm
- injury caused by criminal act
McLaughlin v Morrison
- defenders actions, not pursuers had most causal impact
- illegality defence rejected
- defender drove at pursuer allegedly involved in earlier pub attack (unrelated incidents)
Revill v Newberry
- allotment vandalism not inextricably bound with being shot at
- R successfully sued for damages (2/3 contributory negligence)
Gray v Thames Trains Ltd
- 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
When does prescription period run?
Period runs from date damage occured. Suggested changes: runs only when knowledge of loss, injury, damage caused by certain person
Can limitation period be extended?
Yes, in relation to personal injury, death, defamation:
- time elapsed
- consequent loss of evidence
- difficulties with investigation
Agnew v Scott Lithgow
- vibration white finger
- inexcusable delay in proceedings notwithstanding late diagnosis
Young v Borders Health Board
- no excuse outwith timebar
- knew of misdiagnosis immediately
Elliot v J and C Finney
- hospitalisation period still counted
- court suggested that enquiries could be made on behalf
