Negligence Defences
29 Questions
3 Views

Choose a study mode

Play Quiz
Study Flashcards
Spaced Repetition
Chat to Lesson

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

What is the main purpose of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945?

  • To reduce the damages recoverable based on the claimant's contribution to the damage (correct)
  • To completely absolve defendants from any wrongdoing
  • To allow claimants to sue for damages even if they were partly at fault
  • To find claimants 100% liable for any damage suffered

In cases of contributory negligence, what was the position before the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945?

  • Defendants were completely absolved of any liability (correct)
  • Defendants had to prove the claimant's contribution to the damage
  • Claimants were not allowed to sue for any damages
  • Claimants had to prove 100% fault of the defendant

What does the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria imply?

  • Claimants are completely absolved of any fault if they consented
  • Claimants can sue for any harm suffered, regardless of consent
  • No wrong is done to one who consents to undertake a risk of harm (correct)
  • Defendants are always found fully liable if consent is involved

In Ex turpi causa non oritur action, what scenario leads to the defendant being completely absolved?

<p>When the claimant was participating in an unlawful act (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What was the outcome in Pitts v Hunt regarding contributory negligence?

<p>Plaintiff found 100% liable and defendant completely absolved (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What did Lord Reed emphasize about apportionment of responsibility in Jackson v Murray?

<p>'Variety of possible answers can legitimately be given' (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What did the Supreme Court rule in Patel v Mirza (2016) regarding the claimant's right to recover money?

<p>The claimant had the right to recover money despite the illegal contract. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

In what way did the Lord Neuberge in Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited (2015) emphasize the need for addressing the defence of illegality?

<p>By highlighting the importance of public policy reasons. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

How did Pitts v Hunt (1991) differ from Patel v Mirza (2016) in terms of legal defense application?

<p>Pitts v Hunt applied a volenti defense, while Patel v Mirza addressed the defense of illegality. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What did the majority opinion suggest should be considered when evaluating a claim in an illegal contract situation?

<p>Underlying purpose of the law transgressed and any public policy reason. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What did the CoA rule regarding the volenti defense in Pitts v Hunt (1991)?

<p>The Road Traffic Act rendered volenti defense impossible. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

According to the minority opinion in Patel v Mirza, what was a consequence of making value judgments about respective claims of public interest?

<p>Complexity, uncertainty, and lack of transparency in legal judgments. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

In the context of contributory negligence, what does 'fault' mean according to the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945?

<p>Negligence, breach of statutory duty, or other acts giving rise to tort liability (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

How did the House of Lords rule in Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (1999) regarding contributory negligence?

<p>The damages were reduced by 50% due to contributory negligence. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What was the outcome in Froom v Butcher (1976) regarding contributory negligence?

<p>Damages were reduced by 20% due to the defendant's carelessness. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

According to Griffith J in Smith v Finch (2009), why was the plaintiff held negligent?

<p>The plaintiff didn't wear an approved safety helmet. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

In Jones v Livox Quarries Ltd (1952), why was the plaintiff held liable despite his argument?

<p>He took the risk of being thrown off the traxcavator. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

According to Lord Denning, under what circumstances can an older child be found guilty of contributory negligence?

<p>If they have road sense and experience. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

How does contributory negligence apply in emergency situations according to courts?

<p>Courts are more lenient in emergency situations. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

In Yachuck v Oliver Blais Co Ltd (1949), why was there no finding of contributory negligence for the 9yo boy?

<p>'Very young children cannot be guilty of contributory negligence.' (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

'Contributory negligence: Children' cases like Gough v Thorne (1966) emphasize what factor in determining child negligence?

<p>'Age and circumstances' as critical considerations. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

In the case of ICI Ltd v Shatewell (1965), why was the employer not held liable for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff and another workman?

<p>Because the claimant and another workman disobeyed safety regulations willingly (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

According to the Sporting activities ruling in Simms v Leigh Rugby Football Club Ltd (1969), when does the volenti rule apply?

<p>When conduct is within the logic of the game (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

Why did the Court of Appeal hold that the volenti rule was inapplicable in Bakers v Hopkins (1959)?

<p>The rescuer was not truly voluntary in his actions (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

In Clunis v Camden and Islington Health Authority (1998), why did the Court of Appeal agree with the defendant's ex turpi causa defense?

<p>The claimant pleaded guilty to manslaughter due to diminished responsibility (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What was the outcome of Gray v Thames Trains Ltd (2009) regarding the claimant's attempt to recover damages post-manslaughter?

<p>No recovery at all (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

In Joyce O'Brien (2013), why was there no recovery allowed for injury sustained during a getaway following theft?

<p>The injury was a direct result of careless driving by a third-party (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What distinguishes between Delaney v Pickett (2011) and Joyce O'Brien (2013) regarding recovery for injuries?

<p>'Immediate cause' between obtaining/transporting cannabis and negligent driving (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

Why was the claimant allowed to proceed with a claim in Griffin v UHY Hacker Young & Partners (2010) despite contravening a strict liability law?

<p>'Innocent offense' due to accountants' advice (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

Study Notes

Contributory Negligence

  • Contributory negligence is a defence that reduces damages recoverable by the claimant, not a complete defence (Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, S 1)
  • Damages are reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable, having regard to the claimant's share in the responsibility for the damage
  • Finding 100% contributory negligence is not permitted (Pitts v Hunt, 1991; Jackson v Murray, 2015)

Contributory Negligence: Causation

  • Jones v Livox Quarries Ltd (1952): Plaintiff was held liable for contributory negligence, even though he took a risk of being thrown off, not being run into a traxcavator

Contributory Negligence: Children

  • Yachuck v Oliver Blais Co Ltd (1949): 9-year-old boy was not held liable for contributory negligence, as he was too young to take precautions for his own safety
  • Gough v Thorne (1966): 13-year-old girl was not held liable for contributory negligence, as she was not expected to take precautions for her own safety
  • Lord Denning's guidelines: a child is not guilty of contributory negligence unless they are of an age to take precautions for their own safety and are blameworthy

Contributory Negligence: Emergency Situations

  • Courts are reluctant to find contributory negligence in emergency situations, due to exceptional circumstances (Jones v Boyce, 1816)

Volenti Non Fit Injuria

  • Claimant voluntarily assumes the risk involved in an activity (express or implied)
  • Defendant must prove claimant had full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk (Smith v Charles Baker & Sons, 1891)
  • Volenti non fit injuria is a complete defence (ICI Ltd v Shatewell, 1965)
  • Applies to sporting activities, but only within the logic of the game (Simms v Leigh Rugby Football Club Ltd, 1969)

Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio

  • No action for illegal cause; affront to public conscience (Clunis v Camden and Islington Health Authority, 1998)
  • Applies to joint criminal enterprise (Joyce O'Brien, 2013)
  • Exception: innocent offence (Griffin v UHY Hacker Young & Partners, 2010)
  • Ex turpi causa non oritur actio is a flexible public policy doctrine (Joyce O'Brien, 2013)
  • Overlap with volenti non fit injuria (Pitts v Hunt, 1991)
  • Consideration of various factors, including public policy, proportionality, and underlying purpose of the law (Patel v Mirza, 2016)

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

Quiz Team

Description

Learn about the requirement under section 1(1) to arrive at a 'just and equitable' result in court decisions. Understand how different judges may have varying views on what is considered just and equitable in different circumstances.

Use Quizgecko on...
Browser
Browser