Remoteness and Defences in Negligence Flashcards
Jolly v Sutton
Remoteness; Damage must be reasonably foreseeable but the precise mechanism does not have to be
- boys were playing on an old boat and the boat fell onto J and broke his back
- Some damage was reasonably foreseeable so it wasn’t to remote; even though the chances of the boat falling on him was very unlikely
Smith v Leech Brain
The egg shell skull rule in Negligence; so long as damage would be suffered by a normal claimant, then the defendant must take his victim as he finds them
- Worked in a laboratory and suffered a burn
- he was extra susceptible and as a result he contracted cancer and died
- the damage was not too remote as an ordinary victim would also have suffered damage
Geary v Weatherspoons
The defence of Volenti: if the risk was obvious then the individual will know and accept the risk if they conduct it
- She slid down the bannister at a pub
- held: she knew it was risky and she had consented to the risk
Morris v Murray
The defence of Volenti: the test for violent is subjective
- two drunk men decided to fly an airplane
- morris died and murray was badly injured
- it was held that even though he was drunk he had consented to the risk
Watson v British Boxing Board
the defence of Volenti; where we have voluntary consent to the risk either expressly or impliedly
- Boxer was injured and it took 7 minutes for him to get medical treatment
- He had consented tot eh risk of injury from the boxing match
- He had not consented to the risk of inadequate medical treatment
Collin-Williamson v SIlverlink trains
Contributory negligence; Statutory defence; the conduct of the victim is such that it warrants a reduction of his damages
-he was drunk at a train station and a guard was watching him and did nothing.
He fell onto the tracks and his leg was amputated
- Due to his drunkenness his claim was reduced by 50% for CN
