Defences (cases)

Question 2

Volenti - Dann v Hamilton

Answer 2

P willingly got in a car, knowing that driver was drunk and not under any pressure / necessity, and was injured in accident caused by D’s drunken negligence

=> court did not allow D to raise volenti

Question 3

Volenti - ICI v Shatwell

Answer 3

C & J (both employed by D) agreed to disobey D and test explosives in a way they knew to be dangerous, C was injured and tried to sue D as vic lb

=> D successfully claimed volenti (rather than CN) bcs C encouraged J’s disobedience / negligence + willingly took known risk

Question 4

Volenti - Nettleship v Weston

Answer 4

C giving D = friends’ wife driving lessons, C injured in crash due to D’s inexperience

=> C sued D in negligence, D ag (i) no negligence bcs met standard of reasonable learner driver (ii) volenti (iii) CN

=> court held that C lb, standard = reasonably competent driver even for learners, D didn’t consent to risk bcs asked abt insurance, but D contributorily negligent so 50% damages

Question 5

Volenti - Morris v Murray

Answer 5

C and F drinking together all afternoon, decided to fly F’s plane, crashed and F was killed
=> C sued D = F’s estate in negligence

=> D successfully raised volenti bcs C willingly took part in & assisted activity, w/ full knowledge of the risk, which he voluntarily assumed – didn’t make a ≠ that he might have made a different decision if sober

“the wild irresponsibility of the venture is such that the law should not intervene and leave the loss to lie where it falls” (Fox LJ)

Question 6

Volenti - Reeves v MPC

Answer 6

C in custody of police, who were warned he might commit suicide – C took advantage of officer’s negligence to hang himself

=> C’s administratrix sued D in negligence

=>HL held that C’s act not novus actus nor consent bcs precisely what D had duty to guard against, but C contributed to harm so CN so 50% damages

Question 7

Illegality - Gray v Thames Trains

Answer 7

C got PTSD bcs of train crash due to D’s negligence, caused him to kill someone during psychotic episode, found lb for DR manslaughter by crim court
=> C sued D and sought to recover damages for losses due to his crim act and imprisonment

=>HL found that illegality barred C’s claims, Lord Hoffman explaining narrow and wider rules + justification behind illegality doctrine

Question 8

Illegality - Delaney v Pickett

Answer 8

C&D transporting drugs, C injured in crash caused by D’s negligence

=> CA refused to bar the claim on the grounds of illegality bcs cause of C’s injury = D’s negligent driving, not C’s illegal conduct (= possession of drugs)

Question 9

Illegality - Joyce v O’Brien

Answer 9

C&D stole some ladders, C injured bcs fell out of back of the van they fled the crime scene (D driving v fast)

=> HL allowed D to bring illegality defence bcs foreseeable that such a joint crim enterprise (theft) created increased risk of harm due to dangerous driving (when trying to get away), and the risk materialised

=> C’s injury can be said to have been caused by the crim activity, even if resulted from negligent or intentional act of another party to the crim act

Question 10

Illegality - Patel v Mirza - main point

Answer 10

New ‘harm to the pbc interest’ test for illegality (in contract & unjust enrichment, confirmed that applied to tort in Henderson v Dorset Healthcare)

=> basically weigh reasons to allow against reasons to refuse the defence + consider whether denial of claim = proportionate response to illegality

Question 11

Illegality - Patel v Mirza - new test

Answer 11

(a) consider the underlying purpose of the prohibition which has been transgressed and whether that purpose will be enhanced by denial of the claim (reasons to allow df)

(b) consider any other relevant public policy on which the denial of the claim may have an impact (reasons to refuse the df)

(c) consider whether denial of the claim would be a proportionate response to the illegality, bearing in mind that punishment is a matter for the criminal courts

Question 12

Illegality - Henderson v Dorset Healthcare

Answer 12

• C schizophrenic, was released from D hospital, killed her mother during a psychotic episode => convicted for DR manslaughter
• D found to be negligent in treating / releasing C => C sought damages for loss of liberty and PI
• CA applied old reliance test and barred the claim, Q = whether new P v M approach applied to tort claims ?

Held (SC) : new Patel v Mirza approach did apply to tort BUT same result reached, claim still barred in this case

=> Refused to distinguish Grey : degree of resp for manslaughter (so DR) not relevant

=> refuses C’s ag that insufficient ‘turpitude’ (= ‘badness of behaviour’) bcs “this ignores the seriousness of a conviction for manslaughter” : if crim court thought that D still had ‘mental prerequisites’ for manslaughter, civil court won’t take ≠ approach

=> Lord Toulson in Patel did say there may be exceptional cases where crim act not turpitude (eg ‘trivial offences’ mentioned in Gray, or strict liability offences where C unaware of unlawfulness), but manslaughter def not pt of that

Question 13

Illegality - Stoffel & Co v Grondona

Answer 13

C fraudulently obtained mortgage from building society (B) , D = solicitor’s firm hired by C negligently failed to register some forms, which meant that relevant property remained in M’s name rather than C’s

=> C defaulted on payments, B sued her and C sued D for negligence - D admitted negligence but raised illegality defence

Held (SC) : illegality defence failed bcs C’s claim ‘conceptually separate’ from her illegal conduct

Question 14

CN - Jones v Livox Quarries

Answer 14

C employed in D’s quarry, rides on back of a traxcavator (despite it being forbidden), E negligently driving another vehicle crashes into traxcavator and injures C, C sues employer D, D brings CN, C ag that behaviour not a cause bcs injuries csq of risk ≠ from that to which he exposed himself

=> CA held that C lb for CN and reduced damages : C unreasonably exposed himself to risks including risk of crash + risk of harm was certainly foreseeable => C’s conduct a cause of accident, not merely a circumstance

Question 15

CN - Froom v Butcher

Answer 15

C not wearing a seatbelt, injured in accident caused by D’s negligent driving, sued D, D raised CN

=> CA found C to be CN
+ clarified that “ the question is not what was the cause of the accident but what was the cause of the damage”

+ gave guidelines for seatbelt cases (-25% if seatbelt woulve prevented injury, -10% if would have reduced it, nothing if wouldn’t have made a ≠)

Question 16

CN - Reeves v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police

Answer 16

C held in custody by police (D), told he was a suicide risk, police negligently left flap in cell door open, C used it to hang himself. A’s administratrix sued D, D claimed that novus actus, or alternatively raised volenti and CN.

=> HL held that D liable, but CN so apportioned damages 50-50
* Very act D has a duty to guard against cannot negative chain of causation, even if free & deliberate act by C
* cannot constitute volenti either (bcs whole point = that D had duty to guard against this specific harm, whether C consented to it or not)
* deliberate acts are included within meaning of fault in s4 of the 1945 act

Question 17

CN - St George v Home Office

Answer 17

C used to be drug addict (in his teens), suffered from withdrawal epileptic seizures, of which he informed prison on admittance – prison assigned him a top bunk bed, C fell during a seizure and suffered permanent brain damage
=> sued D in negligence, D ag C partly at fault for becoming addicted

=> CA held that C’s fault “too remote in time, place and circumstance” + “not sufficiently connected with the negligence of the prison staff to be properly regarded as a potent cause of the injury”

Question 18

CN - Cooperative Group v Pritchard

Answer 18

C arguing w/ manager M, M asked her to leave, C refused, M grabbed her, C bit him to escape – C sued M’s employer D, D raised CN based on provocation by C of M

=> CA held that CN not available as a defence for intentional torts (& D vicariously liable for M)

=> Lord Lindley in Quinn v Leathem [1901] AC 495, “the intention to injure the plaintiff negatives all excuses”