Defences Flashcards
Jones v Livox Quarries 1952
Denning MR, contributory negligence requires the foreseeability of harm to oneself.
Jones v Boyce 1816
Will not be penalised with the benefit of hindsight provided conduct reasonable when they acted. C acted reasonably (jumping from a moving vehicle) in a perilous situation.
Badger v Ministry of Defence 2006
Exployee exposed to asbestos fibres and this led to lung cancer. Lung cancer killed him but he smoked throughout despite this risk.
The court reduced damages by 20%.
Poppleton v Portsmouth YAC 2007
Difficult climbing manoeuvre. No enquiries made as to his abilities as a climber and was not told of the activity.
Signed a disclaimer with limited rules. Became tetroplectic.
Was found to be 75% contributory negligent.
Neeson v Acheson 2008
A woman put her face too close to the dogs, drunk. The dog bit her. Foolish, but no reason to expect that the dog would bite. 1/3 loss on the basis of contributory negligence.
Jones v Livoxx Quarries 1952
Fault must make a difference.
Unaware that C had jumped on the back of a truck as it was against company rules. The truck negligently drove into the back, crushing the claimants legs which then had to be amputated.
Owens v Brimmel 1977
Contribution to the fact C harmed - took a lift with a driver C knew to have been drinking.
Seriously injured when crashed into the lamp post. Guilty of contributory negligence so damages reduced by 20%.
Capps v Miller 1989
Failure to secure the helmet properly so reduced the damages by 10% on appeal.
Original trial judge had put too much emphasis on the degree of blameworthiness for evident, ignoring that the claimant had breached a statutory regulation.
Jackson v Murray 2015
Reduction in Damages
The courts will consider respective causative potency, and the relative blameworthiness of each party.
13 year old was struck by a car after getting off the bus.
Froom v Butcher 1976
Seatbelt and crash helmet case.
D was negligent in driving but Froom was already not wearing a seatbelt. If same damage without seatbelt, no blame. Driver must always bare by far the greater responsibility as his negligence caused the accident.
Smith v Charles Baker & Sons 1891
What constitutes consent to injury. Crane lifted stones and at times threw
