Defences

Question 1

Sayers v Harlow UDC

Answer 1

• Damages reduced if claimant has partly caused her own injuries.
• Contributory negligence is a part defence.

Question 2

O’Connell v Jackson

Answer 2

• No Crash Helmet = 15%

- Amount of contributory negligence is decided by the judge.

Question 3

Froom v Butcher

Answer 3

• No seat belt - 20%

- Amount of contributory negligence is decided by the judge.

Question 4

Stinton v Stinton

Answer 4

• Taking lift from drunk driver 33%

- Amount of contributory negligence is decided by the judge.

Question 5

Stermer v Lawson

Answer 5

• No consent as the claimant had not been properly shown how to use the motorbike, and did not appreciate the risks.
• To consent, claimant must have a full understanding of the nature of the actual risk.

Question 6

Smith v Baker

Answer 6

• Claimant had complained about the risks and had no choice but to continue work.
• To consent, claimant must have had a free choice in accepting risk of injury.

Question 7

Ogwo v Taylor / Haynes v Harwood

Answer 7

• Police or firemen didn’t consent to injury when doing their public duty.
• No consent if claimant is acting under a public duty.

Question 8

Sidaway v Governors of the Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Hospitals

Answer 8

• Not every possible risk has to be explained before valid consent can be given.
• Consent in medical treatment

Question 9

ICI Ltd v Shatwell

Answer 9

• Claimant ignoring his employer’s instructions and not following statutory rules cannot use the defence of volenti.
• Consent only available if following orders.

Question 10

Wooldridge v Sumner

Answer 10

• Although the rider owed a duty of care there was no negligence and volenti could not be argued.
• Consent only available if a tort has been committed.