General Negligence - General Defences

Question 1

Ashton v Turner

Answer 1

Ratio: An action in negligence cannot be based on an illegal act.

Facts: A getaway driver involved in a burglary crashed and tried to sue the driver. This was not allowed. Violent was allowed as a defence to the driver.

Question 2

Brannan v Airtours

Answer 2

Ratio: Example of a successful contributory negligence claim.

Facts: Brannan was injured after climbing on a table and being hit by a ceiling fan. He had been warned not to climb on the table. However, he had also been encouraged to drink lots of alcohol. Court held contrib -although they tour company had warned guests not to climb on the tables, it was foreseeable that they could get drunk and do so and they should not have put tables under fans.

Question 3

Co-operative Group v Pritchard

Answer 3

Ratio: Contrib is not available for assault or battery as they are intentional torts.

Facts: The claimant was physically removed from the shop she worked in after an argument. Her removal was a battery. The defendant argued that she should have her damages reduced by contributory negligence but this was not allowed.

Question 4

Cutler v United Dairies

Answer 4

Ratio: Where there is no immediate threat but a rescuer intervenes nonetheless, the rescuer can be seen as having consented.

Facts: A man was injured when he entered a field to calm some horses that did not pose an immediate threat to anyone.

Question 5

Delaney v Pickett

Answer 5

Ratio: For ex turpi to apply, the crime must be related to the tort.

Facts: A passenger was injured in a car accident as a result of the driver’s negligent driving. The pair were both carrying cannabis at the time.

Question 6

Fitzgerald v Lane and Patel

Answer 6

Ratio: The claimant can have his award of damages reduced for his contributory negligence and the remainder can be apportioned between defendants.

Facts: The claimant was crossing a road when the lights were green. He was hit by two cars, both of which were speeding.

Question 7

Froom v Butcher

Answer 7

Ratio: The claimant must have acted reasonably to avoid contributory negligence.

Facts: The claimant was in a car crash with the defendant, but was not wearing a seatbelt (they were not compulsory). He was held to be liable as it was not something a reasonable man would have done.

Question 8

Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing Club

Answer 8

Ratio: An individual can agree to a risk expressly or impliedly through conduct. You cannot consent to negligence in sport.

Facts: Two spectators at a racing event were killed due to faulty railings - no consent.

Question 9

Haynes v Harwood

Answer 9

Ratio: A rescuer does not give voluntary consent to harm where they are acting to protect other from an immediate risk of danger.

Facts: a policeman was injured after catching a bolting horse.

Question 10

ICI v Shatwell

Answer 10

Ratio: Where they choice is freely made against an employer’s instructions, the defence of consent may be open to the employer.

Facts: Emplotees used wire, which was too short, to test explosions in a quarry, against the instructions of the employer.

Question 11

Jones v Livox Quarries

Answer 11

Ratio: If he ought to reasonably have foreseen that if he did not act as a reasonably prudent man he might be hurt, then he will be at fault for the purpose of contrib.

Question 12

Morris v Murray

Answer 12

Ratio: Knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk are necessary for the defence of volenti to apply.

Facts: A drunk man accepted a ride in a light aircraft from a drunk pilot. The plane crashed and the pilot died. The defendant’s estate successfully argued consent when the claimant sued for compensation for the injuries - the risk of injury was equivalent to meddling with an unexploded bomb.

Question 13

Nettleship v Weston

Answer 13

Ratio: For volenti to apply, the claimant must have agreed, expressly or impliedly, to the risk of violence.

Facts: A learner driver crashed, injuring the family friend who had volunteered to teach her.

Question 14

Reeves v Metropolitan Police Commissioner

Answer 14

Ratio: Suicide of a prisoner will not break the chain of causation.

Facts: A man in a police custody was a known suicide risk. He committed suicide. The police argued that his decision to do this was voluntary and so negated their responsibility. The court held that the chain was not broken and that they were under a duty to prevent him killing himself.

Question 15

Smith v Charles Baker and Sons

Answer 15

Ratio: Consent to a risk must be voluntary. In employment situations there often may not be voluntary agreement, as an employee may have no other choice if he wants to keep his job. You consent to risks in the normal course of work, but not to anything caused by negligence.

Facts: The claimant was injured on a construction site where a crane dropped a stone on him. He was aware of the risk and danger, but did not necessarily consent to it.

Question 16

Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester

Answer 16

Ratio: For volenti, the claimant must possess mental capacity to consent.

Facts: A prison suicide case - no capacity to consent.

Question 17

Dann v Hamilton

Answer 17

Ratio: There will be no implied consent to the risk of injury unless it is so extreme that it is the equivalent of ‘meddling with an unexploded bomb’.

Facts: Claimant knew the defendant had been drinking but accepted a lift anyway. Held that this was not equivalent to meddling with an unexploded bomb.

Question 18

Ratcliff v McConnell

Answer 18

Ratio: There will be no implied consent to the risk of injury unless it is so extreme that it is the equivalent of ‘meddling with an unexploded bomb’.

Facts: Jumping into a swimming pool drunk without checking its depth was held to be volenti.

Question 19

Condon v Basi

Answer 19

Ratio: Participants in sport are unlikely to consent to anything outside the normal risks of the game.

Question 20

Baker v Hopkins

Answer 20

Ratio: Defence of consent will not apply where someone is acting to save life and limb.

Facts: Doctor went into mine to try and save some miners and died.

Question 21

Pitts v Hunt

Answer 21

Ratio: There is not usually a duty of care between criminals.

Question 22

Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester

Answer 22

Ratio: 3 principles of ex turpi - 1. Ex turpi arises when a claimant’s claim is based on their own criminal or immoral act. There must be a causal link between the behaviour and the loss. 2. Principle is one of public policy. 3. Criminal conduct must be sufficiently serious.

Facts: An individual was jumping out of a window to evade arrest - his injury was caused by his crime.

Question 23

Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester

Answer 23

Ratio: General test for ex turpi - would providing a remedy for the claimant be an affront to public consciousness.

Question 24

Marsh v Pauline Clare

Answer 24

Ratio: An example of sufficiently serious behaviour - handling stolen goods.

Question 25

Sacco v CC South Wales

Answer 25

Ratio: There must be a causal link between the behaviour and the loss for ex turpi to apply.

Facts: Drunk student there himself out of moving vehicle - clear causal link.

Question 26

Beaumont v Ferrer

Answer 26

Ratio: There must be a causal link between the behaviour and the loss for ex turpi to apply.

Facts: Teenagers injured jumping out of taxi to avoid paying for it - clear causal link.

Question 27

Gough v Thorne

Answer 27

Ratio: It will be difficult to show that a child has failed to take reasonable care.

Question 28

Jones v Boyce

Answer 28

Ratio: The courts will recognise that claimants may act impulsively in an emergency.