Delaney v Pickett: Negligence Defences Quiz and Flashcards

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?

When the claimant was participating in an unlawful act Signup and view all the answers

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

Plaintiff found 100% liable and defendant completely absolved Signup and view all the answers

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

'Variety of possible answers can legitimately be given' 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?

The claimant had the right to recover money despite the illegal contract. 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?

By highlighting the importance of public policy reasons. Signup and view all the answers

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

Pitts v Hunt applied a volenti defense, while Patel v Mirza addressed the defense of illegality. Signup and view all the answers

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

Underlying purpose of the law transgressed and any public policy reason. Signup and view all the answers

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

The Road Traffic Act rendered volenti defense impossible. 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?

Complexity, uncertainty, and lack of transparency in legal judgments. 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?

Negligence, breach of statutory duty, or other acts giving rise to tort liability 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?

The damages were reduced by 50% due to contributory negligence. Signup and view all the answers

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

Damages were reduced by 20% due to the defendant's carelessness. Signup and view all the answers

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

The plaintiff didn't wear an approved safety helmet. Signup and view all the answers

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

He took the risk of being thrown off the traxcavator. Signup and view all the answers

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

If they have road sense and experience. Signup and view all the answers

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

Courts are more lenient in emergency situations. 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?

'Very young children cannot be guilty of contributory negligence.' Signup and view all the answers

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

'Age and circumstances' as critical considerations. 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?

Because the claimant and another workman disobeyed safety regulations willingly 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?

When conduct is within the logic of the game Signup and view all the answers

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

The rescuer was not truly voluntary in his actions 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?

The claimant pleaded guilty to manslaughter due to diminished responsibility 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?

No recovery at all 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?

The injury was a direct result of careless driving by a third-party Signup and view all the answers

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

'Immediate cause' between obtaining/transporting cannabis and negligent driving 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?

'Innocent offense' due to accountants' advice 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.

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.

Negligence Defences

Choose a study mode