General Defences Flashcards

1
Q

Volenti criteria

A

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)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Plaintiff accepted lift with drunk pilot

A

Morris v Murray - claimant’s drunkness had to be taken into account by court when determining whether he appreciated the danger involved

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Voluntary consent is in addition to knowledge. Employees who know risks are not necessarily voluntarily agreeing

A

Smith v Charles Baker

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Implied consent - spectators at dangerous sport

A

Hall v Brookland Auto Racing Club

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Claimant must possess mental capacity to consent

A

Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Volenti will not apply to a rescuer

A

Haynes v Harwood

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Volenti may apply in non-urgent situation so person who interferes is not a rescuer

A

Cutler v United Dairies

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Driving instructor had not agreed to be injured by learner

A

Nettleship v Weston

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

No implied agreement unless risk is so extreme that it is the equivalent of meedling with an unexploded bomb

A

Dann v Hamilton

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Drunk student dived into swimming pool without checking depth

A

Ratcliffe v O’Connell

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Volenti cannot be used by motorists against their passengers

A

s149 Road traffic Act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

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

A

Jones v Livox

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Contributory negligence - an obviously incorrect valuation should’ve put claimant on alert

A

Cavendish v Henry Spencer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

It does not matter that the claimant has no broken the law

A

Froom v Butcher

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Allowances are made for a claimant who has been placed in an emergency or difficult dilemma

A

Jones v Boyce

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Courts will take into account the age of a child in determining the standard of care to be expected

A

Gough v Thorne

17
Q

Rescuers will no be protected from contributory negligence if they created the danger in the first place

A

Harrison v BRB

18
Q

Claimant’s fault must contribute to his injury

A

Froom v Butcher
O’Connell v Jackson (no helmet)
Capps v Miller (failed to wear helmet properly)

19
Q

Ex turpi causa

A

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

20
Q

Compensation denied to passender injured by getaway driver after they’d both been involved in burglary

A

Ashton v Turner

21
Q

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

A

Pitts v Hunt

22
Q

There must be a nexus between the criminal act and the negligent act

A

Gray v Thames Trains

23
Q

Self-defence - force must be reasonable and proportionate

A

Lane v Holloway

Creswell v Sirl (shooting dog threatening livestock ok)

24
Q

Inevitable accident

A

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)

25
Q

D damned a natural stream, not liable when banks broke due to heavy rainfall

A

Nichols v Marsland

26
Q

Paddling pool constructed requiring course of stream to be altered - heavy rainfall was not an Act of God - must be exceptional

A

Greenock

27
Q

Necessity - trespassed to stop fire spreading

A

Cope v Sharpe (no2)

28
Q

Homeless squatter not sufficient to constitute necessity for trespass

A

Southwark v Williams

29
Q

Necessity doesn’t apply to negligence

A

Rigby v CC of Northamptonshire

30
Q

Statutory authority - absolute authority

A

Vaughan v Taff vale

31
Q

Conditional statutory authority

A

Metropolitan District Asylum Board v Hill

32
Q

Discretionary statutory authority

A

X v Bedfordshire CC

33
Q

Duress

A

Gilbert v Stone

34
Q

UCTA controls the exclusion of liability

A

Smith v Eric Bush