29 Questions
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
In cases of contributory negligence, what was the position before the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945?
Defendants were completely absolved of any liability
What does the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria imply?
No wrong is done to one who consents to undertake a risk of harm
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
What was the outcome in Pitts v Hunt regarding contributory negligence?
Plaintiff found 100% liable and defendant completely absolved
What did Lord Reed emphasize about apportionment of responsibility in Jackson v Murray?
'Variety of possible answers can legitimately be given'
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.
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.
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.
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.
What did the CoA rule regarding the volenti defense in Pitts v Hunt (1991)?
The Road Traffic Act rendered volenti defense impossible.
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.
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
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.
What was the outcome in Froom v Butcher (1976) regarding contributory negligence?
Damages were reduced by 20% due to the defendant's carelessness.
According to Griffith J in Smith v Finch (2009), why was the plaintiff held negligent?
The plaintiff didn't wear an approved safety helmet.
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.
According to Lord Denning, under what circumstances can an older child be found guilty of contributory negligence?
If they have road sense and experience.
How does contributory negligence apply in emergency situations according to courts?
Courts are more lenient in emergency situations.
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.'
'Contributory negligence: Children' cases like Gough v Thorne (1966) emphasize what factor in determining child negligence?
'Age and circumstances' as critical considerations.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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.
Make Your Own Quizzes and Flashcards
Convert your notes into interactive study material.
Get started for free
