defences - contributory negligence and contribution

Question 1

common themes

Answer 1

(a) multiple responsibility and the (b) ‘ just and equitable apportionment of loss’
attribution of responsibility

Question 2

contributory negligence

Answer 2

partial defence - contributory negligence act 1945 s1(1)

Where C’s damage arises partly from his or her own ‘fault’ and partly from D’s fault - courts required to apportion responsibility for the losses
Losses should be apportioned on a ‘just and equitable’ basis

doesnt mean D doesnt pay compensation - must pay SOME as bare SOME resp

saying C failed to take reasonable steps to secure his/her safety

Question 3

reasonable person standard

Answer 3

reasonable person standard is applied to C

Froom v butcher - passenger in a car fails to wear a seatbelt
Guidelines- if injury would have been prevented altogether then C’s damages should be reduced by 25%. If injuries would have been less severe then a 15% reduction made

Capps V Miller: motorcyclist fails to wear crash helmet froom is relevant

Owens V Brimmell: CN can be pleaded where a passenger consents to be driven by an intoxicated driver

Gregory V Kelly: CN may be pleaded where C drives a vehicle where they know it to be defective

Question 4

CN and children

Answer 4

Yachuk V Oliver Blais - petrol supplied by D to a nine year old who suffered injury in a subsequent explosion
C held not to have been CN as lacked capacity to be identified as partial author

Morales v Ecclestone - 11 year old held 75& responsible, having run into road and been struck by D’s vehicle

Question 5

CN and the agony of the moment

Answer 5

Jones V Boyce - C leapt from coach and broke his leg, claimed £300 since the carriage being drove carelessly and thought safer to jump off than stay on

if action resulted from rashness and danger did not exist then CN valid
if genuine dangerous situation then no CN

Question 6

CN and apportionment

Answer 6

Reeves V Metropolitian Police Commissioner
detainee in police cell - took own life, estate of detainee negligence action against police commissioner
At trial judge made 100% for CN - view that detainee bore responsibility for outcome
HoLs - replaced CoA with 50% deduction - detainee had been at fault

Question 7

2 considerations

Answer 7

Address Q of CN first then address Q of contribution (as between two or more defendants)
Procedure approved by HoLs in Fitzgerald V lane

Fitzgerald - C walked onto pelican crossing when lights against him and C struck first by D1 and D2, trial judge held all three parties equally to blame
C damages first reduced by 1/3 then after contribution applied and each of D had pay half of resulting sum - loss = evenly parcelled out