Negligence: Defences Flashcards
Volenti - D must prove;
(1) C had Full Knowledge of Nature and Extent
(2) C Willingly Accepted the Risk
NETTLESHIP v WESTON
Volenti - Rare for Employers to succeed with this against Employees
SMITH v BAKER
Volenti - Rare for this to succeed against Rescuers - Compelled by Moral Instinct
HAYNED v HARWOOD
Volenti - Knowledge must be Sufficient
DANN v HAMILTON
Illegality - C involved in an illegal enterprise at the time of the injury
PITTS v HUNT
CN - Defendant must prove…
C was Careless and Careless Behaviour Contributed to C’s Harm
CN - Courts rarely reduce Employees’ damages
CASWELL v POWELL
CN - Child must be Blameworthy
GOUGH v THORN
CN - Rescuers must have shown a ‘Wholly Unreasonable Disregard for his Own Safety’
BAKER v TE HOPKINS & SONS LTD
CN - Driving - Causal Link
(1) Seatbelts
(2) Crash Helmet
(3) Drunken driver
(1) FROOM v BUTCHER
(2) CAPPS v MILLER
(3) OWNES v BRIMMELL
CN - Dilema Rule - Situations of Imminent Danger - Where C’s response is
(1) Reasonable (2) Unreasonable
(1) JONES v BOYCE
(2) SAYERS v HARLOW