Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

18BSA026 - Principles of Law > L9 - Negligence Pt. 2 > Flashcards

L9 - Negligence Pt. 2 Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MPRE flashcards MBE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

How can do we establish the liability in a case of negligence?

A

On the balance of probabilities:

  • The defendant owed the claimant a duty of care to the claimant
  • The defendant breached the duty of care

IN THESES FLASHCARDS WE WILL BE FOCUSING ON

  • The defendant’s breach caused the damage.
  • The damage suffered by the claimant was not too remote (reasonably foreseeable)

all 4 areas must be in place to claim against negligence

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

What needs to be proven to be successful in a negligence claim?

A

To succeed in a negligence claim, the claimant must show that the defendant owed him a duty of care and breached that duty of care.

Also that:

  • The defendant’s breach caused the damage – as a matter of FACT
  • The damage suffered by the claimant was not too remote (reasonably foreseeable) – as a matter of LAW.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is Factual Causation?

A

Factual Causation – There must be a factual LINK between the claimant and the defendant in the CHAIN OF CAUSATION.

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

What is the test to prove causation of injury in a negligence claim?

A
  • The ‘But for’ test - The claimant must prove that negligence caused the injury or loss sustained.
  • i.e. it wouldn’t have happened ‘but for’ the negligence.
  • The burden of proof is always on the claimant which can be difficult.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What are the two Cases of Causation and Remoteness?

A
  • Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969)
  • McWilliams v Sir William Arrol (1962)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is the Case of Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969)?

A
  • Mrs Barnett sued the hospital after her husband had been admitted with vomiting after drinking tea.
  • The doctor sent him home without examining him.
  • Mr Barnett died of arsenic poisoning.
  • Would he have been alive ‘but for’ the lack of treatment
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is the Issue of Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969)?

A

Issue: Causation and Remoteness

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

What is the Ruling of Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969)?

A

Ruling. The judge held that the hospital was not liable.

  • Even if they were to have admitted Mr. Barnett, there would have been little or no chance that the antidote would have been administered to him in time to prevent his death.
  • Although the hospital owed Mr Barnett a standard of care and that it had been breached, that breach was held to not be a cause of Mr Barnett’s death.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What was the Case of McWilliams v Sir William Arrol (1962)?

A
  • A steel erector had fallen seventy feet to his death from a steel lattice tower.
  • The employers had not provided a safety harness.
  • The employers argued that he would not have worn a belt even if it had been supplied.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What was the Issue of McWilliams v Sir William Arrol (1962)?

A

Issue: Causation and Remoteness

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

What was the Ruling of McWilliams v Sir William Arrol (1962)?

A

Ruling.

  • The judge found that he would not have used a security belt even if provided, and that the onus was on the pursuer to prove that the deceased would have worn a safety belt.
  • There was also no obligation on the employers to instruct or force him to wear a safety belt. (different now)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

How can multiple potential causes effect the ‘But for’ test?

A
  • The ‘But for’ test is difficult to prove if there are multiple potential causes
  • The claimant must prove that the defendant specifically caused the injury or loss sustained.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What was the Case of Multiple causes of negligence and the ‘But for’ test of factual causation?

A

Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority (1988)

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

What is the Case of Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority (1988)?

A
  • The hospital negligently administered excessive oxygen during the post-natal care of a premature child who subsequently became blind.
  • Excessive oxygen was one of five possible factors that could have led to blindness.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What is the Issue of Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority (1988)?

A

Issue: Multiple Causes

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

What is the Ruling of Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority (1988)?

A

Ruling.

  • The House of Lords found that it was impossible to say that the defendant’s negligence had caused, or materially contributed, to the injury and the claim was dismissed.
  • On the “balance of probabilities”, the hospital would not be liable, since it was more likely that one of the alternate risks had caused the injury.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What is Novus Actus Interveniens in proving Factual Causation?

A
  • Novus actus interveniens is a Latin term which means a new intervening act.
  • It is an act or event that breaks the causal connection between a wrong or crime committed by the defendant and subsequent happenings.
  • The new event relieves the defendant from responsibility for the happenings.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

How do a judge prove what act caused the negligence under Novus Actus Interveniens?

A
  • Factual Causation – ‘Novus Actus Interveniens’
  • Bill negligently crashes into the back of Ben causing bruising and disorientation.
  • Ben gets out of the car and walks into a speeding car damaging his legs.
  • Ben goes to hospital where a negligent surgeon results in a leg being amputated.

Bill’s negligence started the chain of events – but when was the chain of causation broken?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What are the 3 areas of Novus Actus Interveniens?

A
  • Natural Event
  • Act of Third Party
  • Unlawful/ unreasonable conduct by the claimant
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What is the Case of a Natural Event under Novus Actus Interveniens?

A

Carslogie Steamship Co v Royal Norwegian Government (The Carslogie) (1952)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What was the Case of Carslogie Steamship Co v Royal Norwegian Government (The Carslogie) (1952)?

A
  • The Heimgar, was damaged by a collision with the defendant, Carslogie.
  • The defendants admitted negligence and damage.
    The Heimgar had temporary repairs carried out on the vessel and it was certified to sail for New York.
  • The Heimgar suffered bad damage from stormy weather at sea. The vessel was in need of permanent repairs to fix this damage
  • This repair work began in New York and would last for 30 days. During that time (10 days), the repairs for the collision with the Carslogie were completed.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What was the Issue of Carslogie Steamship Co v Royal Norwegian Government (The Carslogie) (1952)?

A

Issue: Natural Event

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What was the Ruling of Carslogie Steamship Co v Royal Norwegian Government (The Carslogie) (1952)?

A
  • Ruling.
  • On appeal - Held that the defendants were only liable and responsible for the loss of profit resulting from the collision, not for further damage sustained by the natural events at sea. The claim for loss during the 10 day period was not awarded.
  • The storm was a novus actus interveniens and the defendants cannot be held liable for further loss that was as a result of a natural event
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What are the 2 Cases of a 3rd party under Novus Actus Interveniens?

A
  • Baker v Willoughby (1971)

- Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co (1970)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

What was the Case of Baker v Willoughby (1971)?

A
  • Mr Baker (the plaintiff) was knocked down by the defendant’s car, leaving him with a stiff ankle of his left leg and reduced mobility and income.
  • After the accident but before the trial, Mr Baker was shot by a robber in his injured leg and the leg had to be amputated.
  • The defendant argued that the shooting was an intervening event, which was not caused by his negligent driving and the amputation of the man’s leg meant that the defendant could not be held accountable for any loss, since the damage he had done previously no longer existed.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

What was the Issue of Baker v Willoughby (1971)?

A

Issue: Act of Third Party

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

What was the Ruling of Baker v Willoughby (1971)?

A

Ruling. The defendant remained liable for the loss of amenity and lower earning capacity even after the amputation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

What was the Case of Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co (1970)?

A
  • 10 borstal trainees were working on Brownsea Island in the harbour under the control of three officers employed by the Home Office.
  • Seven trainees escaped one night.
  • The trainees boarded a yacht and collided with another yacht, the property of the respondents, and damaged it.
  • The owners of the yacht sued the Home Office in negligence for damages.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

What was the Issue of Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co (1970)?

A

Issue: Duty of Care – proximity. 3rd party.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

What was the Ruling of Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co (1970)?

A

Ruling. Usually one person is under no duty to control another, but here, the court ruled that there was a duty of care. There was a special relationship between the Home Office and the boys. The damage was foreseeable.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

What are the 2 Case of Unlawful/unreasonable conduct by claimant under Novus Actus Interveniens?

A
  • McKew v Holland (1969)

- Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council (1958)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

What is the Case of McKew v Holland (1969)?

A
  • The claimant sustained an injury at work due to his employer’s breach of duty.
    As a result, he strained his back and hips and his leg was prone to giving way.
  • Whilst in this state he attempted to climb down a steep concrete staircase without a handrail unaided.
  • He got part way down and felt his leg give way so he jumped 10 steps to the bottom.
  • He suffered a fractured right ankle and was also left with a permanent disability.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

What is the Issue of McKew v Holland (1969)?

A

Issue: Unlawful/unreasonable conduct by claimant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

What is the Ruling of McKew v Holland (1969)?

A

Ruling.

  • Holland accepted responsibility for injury at work but…
  • The claimant’s action amounted to a novus actus interveniens because his action in attempting to climb the steps unaided knowing that his leg might give way was unreasonable. The defendant was therefore not liable for the injuries resulting from the incident on the stairs.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

What is the Case of Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council (1958)?

A
  • The plaintiff visited a public lavatory, owned by the defendant – a local authority.
  • She locked the door, but when she tried to get out, she could not as the lock was stuck.
  • The plaintiff unsuccessfully tried to attract attention for 15 minutes.
  • Then she decided that she could get out of the lavatory by climbing over the door using the loo roll holder to rest her foot on. She injured herself when the holder gave way.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

What is the Issue of Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council (1958)?

A

Issue: Unlawful/unreasonable conduct by claimant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

What is the Ruling of Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council (1958)?

A

Ruling.

  • The plaintiff did not take a risk that was disproportionate to the necessities of her situation. Therefore, the injury that the plaintiff sustained was not too remote from the negligent act of the local authority.
  • BUT, she should have known that she could not rely entirely on the toilet roll holder to support her weight. Hence, she was 25 per cent to blame for the accident
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

What is Remoteness of Damage in a Negligence Claim?

A
  • Remoteness of Damage – When a chain of causation exists, this element determines how far the damage goes down the chain the courts go.
  • If it is too far down, then it is too remote.
  • It is an objective test. The defendant is only responsible for the damage which a reasonable man would have foreseen as a likely consequence of the action.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

What was the Case of Remoteness of Damage in a negligence claim?

A

The Wagon Mound No1 (1967)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

What was the Case of The Wagon Mound No1 (1967)?

A
  • The defendant’s vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour due to the failure to close a valve.
  • Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil.
  • The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

What was the Issue of The Wagon Mound No1 (1967)?

A

Issue: Remoteness of Damage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

What was the Ruling of The Wagon Mound No1 (1967)?

A

Ruling. Although the fire was a direct result of the oil spillage, it was too remote as no-one knew oil would ignite that way.

Also seen in lecture 8:
Breach of Duty – Practicability of precautions, where it was deemed the seriousness of harm was high enough to mean a breach of duty.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

What was the Case that set the precedence of what must be foreseen under Remoteness of Damage in a negligence Claim?

A

Stewart v West African Terminals (1964)

  • Lord Denning stated that it was not necessary to foresee precise consequences or a chain of events.
  • The damage foreseen must be in the same range as the damage reasonably foreseen and not an entirely different type.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

What are the 2 Cases of Remoteness of Damage and what can be foreseen in a Negligence Claim?

A
  • Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963)

- Bradford v Robinson Rentals (1967)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

What was the Case of Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963)?

A
  • Post Office workers left a manhole, surrounded by paraffin lamps, unattended.
  • Two boys climbed into the manhole.
  • One boy took the lamp and dropped it in the manhole where upon the paraffin vaporised and caused the boys to suffer serious burns.
  • Had the Post Office workers had been negligent in leaving the site unattended with the lamps burning? Did they owe a duty of reasonable care to prevent the site becoming an “allurement” for the boys. Or, the children were trespassers and possibly contributorily negligence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

What was the Issue of Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963)?

A

Issue: Remoteness of Damage - what can be foreseen

47
Q

What was the Ruling of Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963)?

A

Ruling: The PO was liable as the harm was foreseeable even if the circumstances were not. The burning was foreseeable, but the explosion wasn’t.

48
Q

What was the Case of Bradford v Robinson Rentals (1967)?

A
  • Bradford was asked to assist a colleague in a vehicle repair. This request was made in January, during a time when there was unusually cold winter.
  • The trip involved a travelling time of approximately 20 hours’ driving (a distance of 450 to 500 miles in total).
  • Both the vehicle that Bradford was driving, and the vehicle he was driving to, lacked any form of heating function.
  • The exposure to the severely cold weather resulted in the claimant developing injuries stemming from frostbite, despite that he took reasonable caution in dressing warmly.
49
Q

What was the Issue of Bradford v Robinson Rentals (1967)?

A

Issue: Remoteness of Damage - what can be foreseen

50
Q

What was the Ruling of Bradford v Robinson Rentals (1967)?

A

Ruling:
- whilst the claimant’s specific injuries were not foreseeable (due to the rarity of frostbite injuries in England), the kind of injury was foreseeable, namely injury resulting from exposure to extreme weather conditions.

51
Q

What is the ‘Egg-shell Skull’ Rule under Remoteness of Damage under a Negligence Claim?

A
  • You must take your victim as you find them.
  • If a victim has a
    susceptibility to weakness or abnormality (a thin skull or weak heart) and suffers a greater injury as a consequence, the defendant will be liable to the FULL extent of the injuries……
  • ….even if is greater in extent and of a different kind to that foreseeable.
52
Q

What are the 2 Cases to do with the Egg-shell Skull’ Rule?

A
  • Smith v Leech Brain (1962)

- Robinson v Post Office (1974)

53
Q

What was the Case of Smith v Leech Brain (1962)?

A
  • Mr Smith was splashed on the lip with molten metal due to employers’ negligence.
  • He suffered a minor burn.
  • Mr Smith was pre-cancerous and the burn led to the cancer being activated and he died.
54
Q

What was the Issue of Smith v Leech Brain (1962)?

A
  • Issue: The egg-shell skull rule.
55
Q

What was the Ruling of Smith v Leech Brain (1962)?

A

Ruling: whilst the only foreseeable injury was the burn, a normal person would have suffered harm, so the defendant was liable for the death

56
Q

What was the Case of Robinson v Post Office (1974)?

A
  • Following an injury caused by his employer, an employee was injured at work and suffered from tetanus as a result
  • A doctor was supposed to administer a small dose of the anti-tetanus drug, wait 30 minutes to check for an allergic reaction, then administer the full dosage; however he instead administered the full dose immediately
57
Q

What was the Issue of Robinson v Post Office (1974)?

A

Issue: The egg-shell skull rule. Was the doctor’s negligent act an intervening act, therefore negating liability of the company

58
Q

What was the Ruling of Robinson v Post Office (1974)?

A

Ruling: Even if the doctor had followed the guidelines, no reaction would have been visible after 30 minutes so the employer was still liable for the reaction to the treatment

59
Q

What are the 3 Defences to Negligence?

A

1 – Contributory Negligence
2 – Volenti Non Fit Injuria
3 – Ex Turpa Causa

60
Q

What is Contributory Negligence?

A
  • A partial defence since Law reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
  • Reduces the damage the court awards to the claimant – it essentially shares the responsibility.
61
Q

What are the 6 Cases of Contributory Negligence as a Defence?

A
  • Jones v Livox Quarries (1952)
  • Pitts v Hunt (1990)
  • Froom v Butcher (1976)
  • Capps v Miller (1989)
  • Limbrick v French (1993)
  • Insurance Commissioner v Joyce (1948)
62
Q

What was the Case of Jones v Livox Quarries (1952)?

A
  • The claimant worked in the defendant’s quarry. One lunch break he hitched a lift by standing on the tow bar of a traxcavator.
  • The driver of the traxcavator was unaware that the claimant had jumped on the back and it was against company rules to stand on the back of the traxcavators.
  • Unfortunately a dumper truck, driven recklessly by another employee, crashed into the back of the traxcavator crushing the claimant’s legs.
  • Consequently the claimant had to have his legs amputated.
63
Q

What was the Issue of Jones v Livox Quarries (1952)?

A

Issue: Contributory Negligence

64
Q

What was the Ruling of Jones v Livox Quarries (1952)?

A

Ruling: The defendant was liable but the claimant was held to be 1/5 to blame under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. He had acted against orders and exposed himself to danger.

Lord Denning MR:

  • v“Just as actionable negligence requires the foreseeability of harm to others, so contributory negligence requires the foreseeability of harm to oneself.
  • A person is guilty of contributory negligence if he ought reasonably to have foreseen that, if he did not act as a reasonable, prudent man, he might be hurt himself: and in his reckonings he must take into account the possibility of others being careless.”
65
Q

What is the Case of Pitts v Hunt (1990)?

A
  • Mr Hunt (16) gave the Claimant (18) a lift on the back of his motorbike - a Suzuki 250cc..
  • He had no licence to ride the bike on the road. He also had no tax or insurance.
  • They were both drunk.
  • Hunt was driving recklessly and erratically.
  • Mr Pitts was jeering Mr Hunt on and encouraging the dangerous driving.
  • Hunt hit an oncoming car when he was travelling at speed on the wrong side of the road.
  • Mr Hunt was killed and the Claimant was left permanently partially disabled.
  • Brought an action against Hunt’s representatives.
66
Q

What is the issue of Pitts v Hunt (1990)?

A

Issue: Contributory Negligence

67
Q

What is the Ruling of Pitts v Hunt (1990)?

A

Ruling:
- The trial judge was wrong in principle in finding that the Claimant was 100% contributory negligence since the wording of the Act precluded such a finding – ie 100% would obliterate the effect of the original negligence.

68
Q

What was the Case of Froom v Butcher (1976)?

A
  • The Claimant was injured in a car accident due to the negligence of the Defendant. The Claimant was not wearing a seat belt.
69
Q

What was the Issue of Froom v Butcher (1976)?

A

Issue: Contributory Negligence

70
Q

What was the Ruling of Froom v Butcher (1976)?

A

Denning :

  • “Sometimes the evidence will show that the failure made no difference. The damage would have been the same…. In such case the damages should not be reduced at all. At other times the evidence will show that the failure made all the difference.
  • The damage would have been prevented altogether if a seat belt had been worn. In such cases I would suggest that the damages should be reduced by 25%.
  • But often enough the evidence will only show that the failure made a considerable difference.
  • Some injuries to the head, for instance, would have been a good deal less severe if a seat belt had been worn, but there would still have been some injury to the head. In such case I would suggest that the damages attributable to the failure to wear a seat belt should be reduced by 15%.”
71
Q

What was the Case of Capps v Miller (1989)?

A
    • The Claimant, a motorcyclist was stationary in the centre of the road about to turn right into his drive when the Defendant crashed into him from behind.
  • The Defendant was speeding and had been drinking.
  • At the time of the incident, the Claimant had been wearing a crash helmet, but it was not fastened.
  • The helmet came off in the collision and he suffered serious head injuries.
72
Q

What was the Issue of Capps v Miller (1989)?

A

Issue: Contributory Negligence

73
Q

What was the Ruling of Capps v Miller (1989)?

A

Ruling:

  • The trial judge allowed full compensation to the Claimant and made no deduction for contributory negligence.
  • The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the defendant on the finding of no reduction in damages and reduced the damages by 10%. The trial judge had ignored the fact that the Claimant had breached a statutory regulation in not fastening his helmet and this contributed to his injuries.
74
Q

What was the Case of Limbrick v French (1993)?

A
  • Claimant and Defendant went on a pub crawl.
  • Claimant accepted a lift home from Defendant and was injured in a crash.
  • Was Claimant Contributory Negligent for riding with drunk driver and failing to wear a seat belt?
75
Q

What was the Issue of Limbrick v French (1993)?

A

Issue: Contributory Negligence

76
Q

What was the Ruling of Limbrick v French (1993)?

A

Ruling:
- Not Contributory Negligent even though Claimant knew that Defendant had been drinking because not possible to prove that she knew he was unfit to drive.

77
Q

What was the Case of Insurance Commissioner v Joyce (1948?

A

What if the injured claimant is also too drunk to assess the defendant

78
Q

What was the Issue of Insurance Commissioner v Joyce (1948?

A

Issue: Contributory Negligence

79
Q

What was the Ruling of Insurance Commissioner v Joyce (1948?

A

Ruling:

  • Latham LJ stated that if the claimant is sober enough to know the danger he was taking then he will be guilty of contributory negligence.
  • If he drank himself into ‘a state of stupidity or worse he thereby disabled himself from avoiding the consequences of the negligent driving’ then he will be contributory negligent for getting into such a state.
80
Q

What were the 2 Cases to do with contributory Negligence of Children as a defence of Negligence?

A
  • Gough v Thorne (1989)

- Armstrong v Cotterall (1993)

81
Q

What was the Case of Gough v Thorne (1989)?

A
  • A 13 yr old girl was hit by a car which was being driven negligently when a lorry driver indicated that she should cross.
  • His lorry was blocking her view and he could see better.
  • She didn’t look before crossing and took his word for it.
82
Q

What was the Issue of Gough v Thorne (1989)?

A

Issue: Contributory Negligence - Children

83
Q

What was the Ruling of Gough v Thorne (1989)?

A

Ruling:

  • Generally, a child cannot be guilty of contributory negligence.
  • The only exception to this rule are older children where they could be expected to take precautions for their own safety and blame for the accident could be attached to them.
  • Given that she was beckoned by the lorry driver, the child of 13 cannot be expected to lean forward to check whether any traffic was approaching.
84
Q

What was the Case of Armstrong v Cotterall (1993)?

A
  • The Claimant was 12 years old and was trying to cross a busy road with a group of friends.
  • The Defendant saw them hovering by the side of the road.
  • The Claimant hesitated in the middle of the road and then darted into the Defendant’s path.
85
Q

What was the Issue of Armstrong v Cotterall (1993)?

A

Issue: Contributory Negligence - Children

86
Q

What was the Ruling of Armstrong v Cotterall (1993)?

A

Ruling:

  • It was held that the Defendant should have reduced her speed to prevent an accident, and sounded horn.
  • On appeal liability was apportioned on two thirds, one third basis in favour of the Claimant as the claimant was expected to know the basic elements of the Highway Code.
87
Q

What is Volenti Non Fit Injuria as a Defence to Negligence?

A

2 – Volenti Non Fit Injuria

“to a willing person, injury is not done”
- If someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party.

  • one who has invited or assents to an act cannot when suffers from it complain of it as a wrong’
  • This is not the same as consent but is more like a voluntary assumption of the risk. If successful it will be a complete defence for the defendant.
88
Q

When is Volenti Non Fit Injuria traditionally applied?

A

Traditionally the volenti defence applied to all employees. If there was an obvious danger at work which causes an injury, the courts would state the employee voluntarily assumed the risk.

Smith v Baker changed this

89
Q

What are the 4 Cases to do with Volenti Non Fit Injuria as a defence to Negligence?

A
  • Smith v Baker (1891)
  • Imperial Chemicals Industries (ICI) v Shatwell (1965)
  • Woolridge v Sumner (1963)
  • Morris v Murray (1990)
90
Q

What was the Case of Smith v Baker (1891)?

A
  • The claimant was employed to hold a drill in position whilst two other workers took it in turns to hit the drill with a hammer.
  • Next to where he was working another set of workers were engaged in taking out stones and putting them into a steam crane which swung over the place where the Claimant was working.
  • The Claimant was injured when a stone fell out of the crane and struck him on the head.
  • The Defendant raised the defence of volenti non fit injuria in that the Claimant knew it was a dangerous practice and had complained that it was dangerous but nevertheless continued.
91
Q

What was the Issue of Smith v Baker (1891)?

A

Issue: Volenti Non Fit Injuria

92
Q

What was the Ruling of Smith v Baker (1891)?

A

Ruling: HoL: The Claimant may have been aware of the danger of the job, but had not consented to the lack of care. He was therefore entitled to recover damages.

93
Q

What was the Case of Imperial Chemicals Industries (ICI) v Shatwell (1965)?

A
  • The claimants were brothers who were qualified shotfirers employed by the defendant.
  • They were injured as a result of an explosion at the defendant’s quarry caused by the brothers’ negligence.
  • They had insufficient wire to test a circuit to allow them to test from a shelter.
  • Another worker had gone to fetch more wire but the brothers decided to go ahead and test with the shorter wire.
  • Each brother claimed against the defendant based on their employer’s vicarious liability for the negligence and breach of statutory duty of the other brother.
94
Q

What was the Issue of Imperial Chemicals Industries (ICI) v Shatwell (1965)?

A

Issue: Volenti Non Fit Injuria

95
Q

What was the Ruling of Imperial Chemicals Industries (ICI) v Shatwell (1965)?

A

Ruling: The brothers had deliberately acted in defiance of the employer’s express instructions in full knowledge of the risks. The workers were under the statutory duty not the employer.

96
Q

What was the Case of Woolridge v Sumner (1963)?

A
  • The claimant was a photographer at a horse show. He was situated within the ring of the horse show and not behind the barriers where the spectators were housed.
  • He had been taking little interest in the proceedings and was not experienced in regard to horses.
  • During the competition, one of the horses owned by the Defendant, came galloping at great speed towards the bench where they were sitting.
  • The Claimant took fright at the approach of the galloping horse and stepped or fell back into the course of the horse which passed three or four feet behind the bench, and was knocked down.
97
Q

What was the issue of Woolridge v Sumner (1963)?

A

Issue: Volenti Non Fit Injuria

98
Q

What was the Ruling of Woolridge v Sumner (1963)?

A

Ruling:

  • There was no breach of duty so the Claimant’s action failed. On the issue of volenti non fit injuria it was held that consent to the risk of injury was insufficient.
  • There must be consent to the breach of duty in full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk.
99
Q

What was the Case of Morris v Murray (1990)?

A
  • The Claimant and Defendant had been drinking all day. The Defendant, who had a pilot licence and a light aircraft, suggested that they took the aircraft for a flight.
  • The Claimant agreed and drove them both to the airfield. They started the engine and the Defendant took off but crashed shortly after in bad weather.
  • The Defendant was killed and the Claimant was seriously injured. An autopsy revealed that the Defendant had consumed the equivalent of 17 Whiskeys.
  • In an action for negligence, the Defendant raised the defence of volenti non fit injuria.
100
Q

What was the Issue of Morris v Murray (1990)?

A

Issue: Volenti Non Fit Injuria

101
Q

What was the Ruling of Morris v Murray (1990)?

A

Ruling:
- The defence was allowed. The actions of the Claimant in accepting a ride in an aircraft from an obviously heavily intoxicated pilot was so glaringly dangerous that he could be taken to have voluntarily accepted the risk of injury and waived the right to compensation.

102
Q

What is Ex Turpi Causa as a defence to Negligence?

A

3 – Ex Turpi Causa

“from a dishonorable cause an action does not arise”

A bar to an action, on the basis of illegality.

In other words the claim would be defeated and not reduced in damages

103
Q

What were the 4 Case of Ex Turpi Causa as a defence to Negligence?

A
  • Euro Diam Ltd v Bathurst (1988)
  • Ashton v Turner (1981)
  • Pitts v Hunt (1990) - Again
  • Revill v Newbury (1996)
104
Q

What was the Case of Euro Diam Ltd v Bathurst (1988)?

A
  • The plaintiff’s business involved the supply of precious stones at home and abroad.
  • The plaintiff entered into a contract of indemnity insurance with the defendant in respect of the export of a consignment of diamonds.
  • The contract provided that the exporting should comply with the laws of the relevant country.
  • Diamonds were exported to West Germany and stolen.
  • The defendants (insurers) denied liability claiming that the plaintiff had misrepresented the value of the consignment so as to enable the German company to evade import tax and therefore the plaintiff’s claim was tainted with illegality.
105
Q

What was the issue of Euro Diam Ltd v Bathurst (1988)?

A

Issue: Ex Turpi Causa

106
Q

What was the Ruling of Euro Diam Ltd v Bathurst (1988)?

A

Ruling:

  • The Court of Appeal held the invoice issued by the plaintiff constituted a criminal offence under West German law.
  • However, it was not issued for the plaintiffs’ own purposes and did not deceive the defendant because the true value of the diamonds was recorded on the plaintiffs’ register.
107
Q

What was the Case of Ashton v Turner (1981)?

A
  • The Claimant was injured when the Defendant crashed the car in which he was a passenger.
  • The crash occurred after they both had committed a burglary and the Defendant, who had been drinking, was driving negligently in an attempt to escape.
108
Q

What was the Issue of Ashton v Turner (1981)?

A

Issue: Ex Turpi Causa

109
Q

What was the Ruling of Ashton v Turner (1981)?

A

Ruling: The Court dismissed the claim holding that as a matter of public policy the law would not recognise a duty of care owed by one participant in a crime to another.
It held in the alternative that, even if a duty of care was owed, the Claimant had willingly accepted as his the risk of negligence and injury resulting from it.

110
Q

What was the Issue of Pitts v Hunt (1990) - 2?

A

Issue: Ex Turpi Causa

111
Q

What was the Ruling of Pitts v Hunt (1990) - 2?

A

Ruling: The plaintiff’s action arose directly ex turpi causa (out of his own illegal act) and therefore, he is prevented from recovering compensation from the first defendant.

See also contributory negligence

112
Q

What is the Case of Revill v Newbury (1996)?

A
  • Mr Newbury owned an allotment which had a shed in which he kept various valuable items. The shed was subject to break ins and vandalism. Mr Newbery had taken to sleeping in his shed armed with a shot gun.
  • Mr Revill accompanied by a Mr Grainger, went to the shed at 2.00 am in order to break in. Mr Newbery awoke, picked up the shot gun and fired it through a small hole in the door to the shed. The shot hit Mr Revill in the arm. It passed right through the arm and entered his chest.
113
Q

What is the Issue of Revill v Newbury (1996)?

A

Issue: Ex Turpi Causa

114
Q

What is the Ruling of Revill v Newbury (1996)?

A

Ruling:

  • Both parties were prosecuted for the criminal offences committed. Mr Revill pleaded guilty and was sentenced. Mr Newbery was acquitted of wounding.
  • On the civil case, the Claimant’s action was successful as Newbury should have fired a warning shot. However his damages were reduced by 2/3 under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 to reflect his responsibility for his own injuries.

18BSA026 - Principles of Law (13 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions