General Defences Flashcards
Volenti criteria
Claimant:
- knew of risk
- voluntarily agreed to the risk of being injured by D
(- voluntarily agreed that there should be no legal liability for this)
Plaintiff accepted lift with drunk pilot
Morris v Murray - claimant’s drunkness had to be taken into account by court when determining whether he appreciated the danger involved
Voluntary consent is in addition to knowledge. Employees who know risks are not necessarily voluntarily agreeing
Smith v Charles Baker
Implied consent - spectators at dangerous sport
Hall v Brookland Auto Racing Club
Claimant must possess mental capacity to consent
Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police
Volenti will not apply to a rescuer
Haynes v Harwood
Volenti may apply in non-urgent situation so person who interferes is not a rescuer
Cutler v United Dairies
Driving instructor had not agreed to be injured by learner
Nettleship v Weston
No implied agreement unless risk is so extreme that it is the equivalent of meedling with an unexploded bomb
Dann v Hamilton
Drunk student dived into swimming pool without checking depth
Ratcliffe v O’Connell
Volenti cannot be used by motorists against their passengers
s149 Road traffic Act
Guilty of contributory negligence if he reasonably ought to have foreseen that if he did not act as a reasonably prudent man, he might be hurt
Jones v Livox
Contributory negligence - an obviously incorrect valuation should’ve put claimant on alert
Cavendish v Henry Spencer
It does not matter that the claimant has no broken the law
Froom v Butcher
Allowances are made for a claimant who has been placed in an emergency or difficult dilemma
Jones v Boyce
Courts will take into account the age of a child in determining the standard of care to be expected
Gough v Thorne
Rescuers will no be protected from contributory negligence if they created the danger in the first place
Harrison v BRB
Claimant’s fault must contribute to his injury
Froom v Butcher
O’Connell v Jackson (no helmet)
Capps v Miller (failed to wear helmet properly)
Ex turpi causa
Courts will not compensate a claimant who is a wrongdoer or where it would be an affront to the public conscience to do so - Kirkham
Compensation denied to passender injured by getaway driver after they’d both been involved in burglary
Ashton v Turner
P and D both heavily intoxicated, P rode pillion of D’s motorbike, encouraging D to drive recklessly. Joint illegality made it impossible to apply a standard of care and action failed
Pitts v Hunt
There must be a nexus between the criminal act and the negligent act
Gray v Thames Trains
Self-defence - force must be reasonable and proportionate
Lane v Holloway
Creswell v Sirl (shooting dog threatening livestock ok)
Inevitable accident
Defendant does not intend in anyway and no avoidable by any such precautions as a reasonable man could be expected to take - Stanley v Powell (shot in eye)
D damned a natural stream, not liable when banks broke due to heavy rainfall
Nichols v Marsland
Paddling pool constructed requiring course of stream to be altered - heavy rainfall was not an Act of God - must be exceptional
Greenock
Necessity - trespassed to stop fire spreading
Cope v Sharpe (no2)
Homeless squatter not sufficient to constitute necessity for trespass
Southwark v Williams
Necessity doesn’t apply to negligence
Rigby v CC of Northamptonshire
Statutory authority - absolute authority
Vaughan v Taff vale
Conditional statutory authority
Metropolitan District Asylum Board v Hill
Discretionary statutory authority
X v Bedfordshire CC
Duress
Gilbert v Stone
UCTA controls the exclusion of liability
Smith v Eric Bush
