Defences and Remedies

Question 1

Sterner v Lawson

Answer 1

C borrowed motorbike but not shown how to use it, couldn’t consent to risks involved.

Question 2

Smith v Baker

Answer 2

Worker hit by rocks falling from crane above, didn’t consent to harm as he’d complained to employer.

Question 3

Simms v Leigh Rugby Football Club

Answer 3

Claimant had volunteered to risk of harm as tackle was within rules of rugby.

Question 4

Pitts v Hunt

Answer 4

Even though C got on motorbike with drunk D, can’t consent to risks according to RTA 1988.

Question 5

Owens v Brimmell

Answer 5

C can’t consent to harm in road accidents, but can have damages reduced instead (contributory negligence).

Question 6

Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council

Answer 6

C had damages reduced after she chose to escape locked loo using toilet roll as footrest.

Question 7

Smith v Finch

Answer 7

Damages not reduced from not wearing helmet as it wouldn’t have helped anyway.

Question 8

Jones v Livox Quarries

Answer 8

C crushed under traxcavator had damages reduced as he should’ve known better (warned by bosses).

Question 9

Gough v Thorne

Answer 9

13 yo girl didn’t contribute to harm when crossing road; took into account her age.

Question 10

Evans v Souls Garage

Answer 10

Boy smoking covered in petrol was contributorily negligent as should’ve realised risks.

Question 11

Morris v Murray

Answer 11

C did consent to risks by getting into aircraft with drunk D (RTA 1988 doesn’t apply to helicopters).

Question 12

Baker v Hopkins

Answer 12

Rescuer, didn’t consent to injury just because he heroically went down the well.

Question 13

Montgomery v Lanarkshire HB

Answer 13

Medical consent is only valid if patient aware of all risks.

Question 14

Marcroft v Scruttons

Answer 14

C didn’t go to hospital after injuries, which worsened. Couldn’t claim as hadn’t mitigated