Defenses to Negligence

Question 1

Haynes v Jones

Answer 1

Facts:
1. DEF negligently left horse unattended and horse bolted. 2. CLM, a police officer got injured whilst trying to stop horse. 3. DEFENCE: Def raised Volenti non fit injuria arguing that the CLM consented to voluntarily intervene and was responsible for own injury.

Held:

1. Def was liable and the Volenti Failed. 2. The Def had negligently caused the dangerous situation in a busy area, which could have hurt others.
2. When the CLM intervened, he was not genuinely consenting to the risks included, he was merely acting on instinct to prevent greater tragedy.

Question 2

Dann v Hamilton

Answer 2

Facts:
1. CLM and DEF met at pub, and CLM accepted lift back from DEF who had been drinking. 2. Whilst driving home, they got in accident and CLM sued for negligence. 3. The DEF raised Volenti non fit injuria.

Held:
1. Simply accepting a lift from someone who had been drinking was not sufficient to imply the CLM was consenting to the risk of negligent driving. 2.Unless it was clear that the DEF was very drunk and at this instance the CLM accept life, then it means CLM consented to risk of negligent driving. 3. Defs drunkenness was not in that category, so defense of Volenti failed.

Question 3

Sayers v Harlow council

Answer 3

Facts:

1. CLM went to toilet and was locked in due to fault in toilet door
2. Realizing she might miss her bus back home, she decided to try and climb out.
3. However she fell and broke her leg.
4. CLM sued the council for negligence in failing to maintain the toilet.

Held:

1. The council were liable to CLM because as member of public, they owe her a duty of care, and had breached it by failing to maintain the quality and safety of the toilets, CLM suffered damages as a result. 2. however her damages was reduced by 20% because she had contributed to her own injury by climbing out of the toilet. 3. Def must show that the CLM has failed to take reasonable care of his/her safety and the failure contributes to CLMs injuries.

Question 4

Froom v Butcher

Answer 4

Facts:

1. CLM injured due to negligent driving of DEF but at same time CLM wasn’t wearing any seat belt.
2. This did not cause the accident but it did contribute to Worsening his injuries

Held:

1. Courts set out guidelines on how to assess percentage of reductions in such cases.
2. 25% reduction if failure to wear seat belt causes all injuries. 3. 15% reduction if failure to wear seat belt contributes to injuries. 4. 0% reduction if wearing seat belt made no difference.

Question 5

Jackson v Murray

Answer 5

Facts:

1. (High Court) Schoolgirl hit by speeding motorist when she stepped out of a bus to cross the road.
2. The motorist was held liable, but 1st instance judge reduced her damages by 90% on grounds of contributory negligence (main cause of accident is girl’s recklessnes in atetmping to cross. 3. The court of Appeal reduced contributor negligence to 70% (her age and lock of experience of potential dangers) . 4. The CLM appealed to supreme court for no reduction for contributory negligence.

Held:

1. A child who is old enough to appreciate danger can be contributory negligent.
2. A 13 year old would have some appreciation of risks of road 3. The reckless driver was equally at fault, however so an appropraite reduction in damages for contributory negligence was 50%

Question 6

Mckew v Holand

Answer 6

Facts:

1. CLM leg was injured due to DEFs negligence, and as a result leg would give away unexpectedly.
2. CLM sued the DEF in negligence and when waiting for court decision, the CLM viewed house, and tried to climb steep stairs while carrying his child. 3. This caused leg to give away again and cause further injuries

Held:

1. CLM could recover compensation for first injury (directly caused by DEFs negligence) but not for second injury. 2. This is because second injury is result of his own action of climbing up steep stairs carrying a child, knowing he had a weak leg, and it was so unreasonable that he effectively caused the second injury himself.
2. It was more than mere contributory negligence - it was Novus Actus Interveniens.