Defences to Negligence Flashcards
Defences to Negligence
1) Volenti non fit injura - C’s consent
2) Illegality
3) Contributory negligence
Woolridge v Summer
For volenti to apply, C must consent to the breach of duty in the full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk - consent to just a RISK of injury is insufficient
Dann v Hamilton
Asquith J held that volenti only applies in two main situations:
1) D created an obvious danger which C chose voluntarily to go into
2) C impliedly gave D permission to act in a certain way
ICI v Shatwell
Volenti applies where C has extensive knowledge about the risk, especially where they have been trained to follow rules in order to avoid it
Morris v Murray
C accepting a ride from someone drunk in an aeroplane was so glaringly obvious that he voluntarily accepted the risk of injury and waived his right to compensation
Corr v IBC Vehicles
For volenti to apply, C’s consent must be truly informed and voluntary - it was not in this case because C’s psychiatric illness prevented them from properly weighing up the risks
Reeves v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
Volenti does NOT apply to individuals in custody - nature of duty here is to prevent any self-harm
s.1(1) Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
CN is no longer a full defence, but the damages awarded to C shall be reduced to the extent that the court feels is just and equitable in light of C’s CN
Jones v Limox Quarries
Test for CN under s.1(1) of the 1945 Act is whether C failed to take the care that a reasonable, prudent person would have taken for their own safety
Froom v Butcher
C’s failure to wear a seatbelt = CN, even though they were not mandatory at the time and only 20% of people wore them. Court does not look at what the majority of people do, but what the reasonable person ought to do
Yachuk v Oliver Blais Co
Age is a relevant factor for CN - young children cannot be subject to CN
Gough v Thorne
Lord Denning affirmed Yachuk that young children can never be liable for CN, whereas Salmon LJ suggested that the comparison should be with what the reasonable 13 year old person would have done in that situation
Smith v Finch
CN did not apply because it would have made no difference to C’s injuries - if the same damage to C would have occurred anyway, then CN does not apply
Jones v Limox Quarries
Where C’s carelessness can obviously lead to the sort of injury suffered by himself, causation is met for CN - so C disregarding the rules and driving the quarry vehicle negligently could clearly lead to injury, so CN applied
St George v Home Office
Court needs to consider whether C’s contribution has fed into damage, or if it is too remote in time, place and circumstances for CN to apply
C was a drug addict and so his contribution wasn’t sufficiently close in time, place and circumstances for CN to apply
Froom v Butcher
It is causation of damage that is required, NOT causation of the accident itself. C had not contributed to the accident, but did contribute to the damage by not wearing a seatbelt - so CN applied
Reeves v MPC
HL made CN reduction for prisoner suicide in custody - while there was a duty to prevent self-harm in prison, C was still of sound mind when committing suicide - so D is still liable, but CN applied and damages were apportioned 50/50
Corr v IBC Vehicles
Worker suffered injury which led to depression and later suicide. 3-2 majority held that CN did apply because there was some kind of choice, even though it was a distorted one due to C’s depression
Illegality
This does NOT only apply to negligence, but also applies to other torts.
‘Ex turpi causa’
Les Laboratories Servier v Aptoex
SC said that the definition of turpitude (wrongfulness) follows from the illegality defence. Lord Sumption explained that illegality is not actually a defence, but judicial abstention limited to acts which involve the interests of the state - i.e. criminal acts being deterred
Different approaches to illegality
a) Criminality irrelevant
b) Impossibility of ascertaining standard of care
c) Relevant for FJR limb of Caparo
d) Prevents C from relying on illegality
e) Causation/consistency between tort and criminal law
f) Focus on public policy
Revill v Newberry
C’s illegal activity by trespassing did not prevent C’s claim - purpose of tort law is to compensate damage suffered by C
Pitts v Hunt
Joint illegal activity meant that it was impossible to ascertain the appropriate standard of care, so D could not rely on illegality of C’s conduct
Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester
CA used C’s illegality in the fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty on D assessment - majority held that C’s illegality prevents the duty of care in itself, so C has no claim due to their illegality
Hewison v Meridian Shipping
C cannot recover damages for the element of the claim that involved his own illegal activity - so C couldn’t recover the loss of future earnings because this element relied on his illegality
Gray v Thames Trains
Distinction between the wide and narrow versions of illegality
Wide = C cannot claim compensation for losses suffered as a consequence of their own criminal conduct Narrow = C cannot claim compensation for loss resulting from the imposition of criminal sanctions
Lord Hoffmann said that C’s claim failed because of causation - situation fell within the wide version of illegality as C’s loss of earnings was caused by their own illegal conduct
Whereas Lord Roger argued that the real reason for the claim failing was to avoid inconsistency between tort and criminal law - imposition of criminal sanction should cut off prior liability for D
Hounga v Allen
Court took a very different approach to illegality as a ‘defence’ to negligence - weighed up the various public policy factors in determining whether C’s claim should succeed, despite C’s illegal conduct
Les Laboratories Servier v Aptoex
SC was sceptical of public policy approach in Hounga v Allen and argued that it would make illegality too discretionary. So cast some doubt over the public policy factors test