Negligence - Defences Flashcards
Contributory Negligence
Law Reform Act (Contrib Neg) 1945, s1(1) - court has power to apportion the damage and where a P’s own conduct has contributed to the accident/harm to reduce the damages awarded
Pitts v Hunt (1991)
CoA held for Act to come into operation there must be fault on the part of both parties - P cannot be 100% at fault as would defeat the claim
Froom v Butcher (1976)
P involved in collision caused by D’s neg. Wasn’t wearing seatbelt. If had been, head and chest injuries he sustained would have been avoided.
Held: standard of care us objective. P failed to take reasonable precautions for his own safety, damages reduced accordingly.
Neg of P didn’t contribute to accident happening, but failure to take precautions increased risk of harm
Condon v Condon (1978)
P claimed to suffer from seatbelt phobia, was held not to be contrib neg for failing to do so
Stanton v Collinson (2010)
C (16yo) sharing front passanger seat with another. D (driver) lost control, crashed, C suffered severe brain damage. Neither pass wearing seatbelt. Evidence - seatbelt would reduce but not prevent head injuries. CoA held med evidence was required to ersolve the uncertainties and that D had not proved that failure to wear sb made “substantial difference” to C’s injuries
Smith v Finch (2009)
Cyclist serious head injuries in road accidence caused by D. No legal requirement to wear helmet, but court held Froom should apply to cycling helmets. Here contrib neg failed, D unable to show helmet would have prevented C’s head injuries or lessened their severity
Badger v MoD (2006)
C’s husband exposed to asbestos fibres while boiler maker w/MoD. Causative of lung cancer that killed him. MoD admitted liability. Deceased had smoked for maj of his life, also causative of cancer. MoD claimed damages should be reduced as result of contrib neg.
Held: Contrib neg, damages reduced 20%
Owens v Brimmell (1977)
P and D went on pub crawl, each consumed 8 or 9 beers. Driving home, D neg drove into lamp post. Held: P 20% contrib neg in getting into car with drive he knew was drunk, even if he too was drunk at time
Jones v Livox Quarries (1952)
P, disregarding safety instructions, riding on towbar when another employee neg drove into back of vehicle causing injury. P argued his contrib neg shouldn’t count against him because obvious danger of riding on towbar was being thrown off, not collision.
Held: risk of being run into was also one to which P had exposed himself. Damages reduced accordingly.
Yachuk v Oliver Blais Co (1949)
D gave 9yo boy pint of petrol. Falsely stated his mother wanted it for car. Used fuel to make burning torch and suffered sever injury.
Held: D liable in neg for giving petrol to child. P not contrib neg as didn’t know and couldn’t be expected to know the danger
Gough v Thorne (1966)
P (13yo) crossing road. Lorry driver beckoned her to proceed and she was struck by D driving too fast. Relying on driver’s signal did not make her contrib neg
Caswell v Powell Duffryn (1940)
Regard must be had tot he dulling of the sense of danger through familiarity, repetition, noise, confusion, fatigue, preoccupation at work
Jones v Boyce (1816)
P passenger in D’s coach. Fearing it was about to overturn, he jumped off. Coach didn’t overturn and had he stayed where he was, P would have been safe. Held: no contrib neg, he had acted reasonably in circs
Volenti non fit injuria
D will not be liable if P voluntarily assumed to take the risk involved (but knowledge of danger doesn’t necessarily imply consent)
Smith v Charles Baker & Sons (1891)
P employed drilling holes in a rock cutting, over which a crane often swung heavy stones. He was aware there was risk of stones falling and complained to emp. Injured by falling stone, brought an action against emp, who pleaded volenti.
Held: Volenti rejected - P had knowledge of danger and continued to work, he had not voluntarily undertaken the risk
