Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

A level Law: Tort Law > 3.7 Defences > Flashcards

3.7 Defences Flashcards

(64 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

What are the 2 defences for tort law?

A

Contributory negligence and voluntary non fit injuria (consent)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What does the Law reform (contributory negligence) act 1945 say contributory negligence is?

A

Where a person sufferes damage partial through his own fault and partially through fault of D
- Partial defence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is a case for contributory negligence

A

Revill v Newbery

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Facts of Revill v Newbery

A

D owned an allotment which he slept in it with a shotgun most nights as it was prone to break ins. C brone into it, got shot and suffered injuries

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Held in Revill v Newbery

A

Using the defence of contributory negligence, D’s damages were reduced by 2/3s

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is meant by partial defence

A

divert some blameworthiness, but not all

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What happens if defence of contributory negligence is successful

A

courts will apportion loss between the parties

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What are the 2 requirements of contributory negligence

A
  1. C failed to take proper care under circumstances for their own safety. (Varies with certain circumstances, things like age are took into account)
  2. The failure to take proper care was a contributory cause of the damage suffered
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What are some examples of the 2nd point

A

Failure to wear setabelt
failure to follow safety instructions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What is a case that illustrates the requirements of contributory negligence

A

Gough v Thorns (1966)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Facts of Gough v Thorns

A

Lorry slowed down to let some kids cross road. D crepted up with his car and crashed into children causing damages

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Held in Gough v Thorns

A

Measured reasonableness of the child and showed they cannot be contributory to negligence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is voluntary non fit injuria (consent)

A

willingly placing themselves in position of harm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

There are 3 elements to volunatry non fit injuria, what are these?

A
  1. Voluntary
  2. Agreement
  3. Knowledge
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

explain ‘voluntary’

A

agreement must be freely entered
- If C cannot exercise free choice defence will not work

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

explain ‘agreement’

A

can be expressed or implied, knowledge of the risk is not enough

expressed agreement - verbal

implied agreement - C demonstrates willingness to accept legal and physical risks

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

case for agreement

A

Smith v Charles baker and Sons

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

facts of Smith v Charles baker and sons

A

C was a construction worker, he would often have a crane lift stones over his head, one day a stone fell causing him injuries.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

explain ‘knowledge’

A

C must have had knowledge of the full nature and extent of the risk

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

held in Smith v Charles baker and sons

A

Him having knowledge of possible risk wasnt enough. He did not consent to the lack of care

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

how are rescuers and sportsmen seen in regards to consent?

A

rescuers - not freely and voluntarily accepted the risk.

sportsmen - consenting to risk of injury which occurs ordinary of said sport

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

what is a case the illustrates the point of ‘knowledge’

A

Morris v Murray

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Facts of Morris v Murray

A

After drinking alcohol the 2 friends decided to go flying. C and D were on the plane and it later crashed. C sued d’s representatives

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Held in Morris v Murray

A

C was proven to have ‘accepted the risk’ as he knew the person was so drunk the aircraft ride would not be safe

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
In regards to occupiers liability how does consent work
no duty of care owed to a person who willingly accepts risks, ne need to establish agreement
24
Case for consent in occupiers liability
Tichener and British Railway Board (1983)
25
Facts of Tichener v british railway board
C, 15 year old girl, took a short cut through a trainline. As a result of this both her and her bf were injured
26
Held in Tichener v British Railway Board
Voluntary non fit injuria was successfull as a reaosnabel 15 year old girl would understand the risks
27
What are the 4 defences to private nuisance
ordinary use of land statutory authority act of god and nuisance arising naturally perscription
28
case that illustrates 'ordinary use of land'
Mills v southwark london borough council (2001)
29
facts of mills v southwark london borough council
C were tenants of council properties owned by D. C complained soundproofing was insufficient and could hear day to day activities from neighbours.
30
Held in Mills v Southwark London Borough Council
There was no nuisance as the use of flats was reasonable, claim failed.
31
explain statutory authority
Public authorities acting under power, like road workers - only defence if nuisance doesnt exceed that which is authorised
32
Case for statutory authority
Allen v Gulf oil Refining Ltd
33
Facts of Allen v Gulf oil refining Ltd
D were constructing oil refinery, C brough action because of the smell, noise and vibrations
34
held in Allen b Gulf oil refining ltd
D was not liable as the construction of the refinery was authorised by act of parliment
35
Explain 'act of god and nuisance arising naturally'
Event that happens independently of any human action - complete defence
36
what is the exception to this
If occupier becomes aware of it and fails to remedy it within reasonable time, he may be laible for any damage caused
37
case that illustrates 'act of god, or nuisance arising naturally'
Goldman v Hargrave
38
facts of Goldman v Hargrave
100 foot tree caught on fire after being struck by lightning on D land. Morning after wood was still smouldering and it caught fire again damaging neighbours property
38
facts of Goldman v Hargrave
100 foot tree caught on fire after being struck by lightning on D land. Morning after wood was still smouldering and it caught fire again damaging neighbours property
39
Held in Goldman v Hargrave
As d failed eliminate the risk, he became liable.
40
Explain 'perscription'
If D can prove nuisance has been going on for over 20 years and the C knew and failed to act, then he has a complete defence
41
case for 'perscription'
coventry v lawrence
42
facts of coventry v Lawrence
D had a motorcross stadium going on since 1975. In 2006 C bought a house near it and complained aboiut the noise
43
Held in coventry v lawrence
D was not laible as stadium had gain perscriptive right for being there for over 20 years
44
What are the 4 defences to Rylands v Fletcher
Act of stranger Act of God Statutory Authority Consent/Benefit
45
Explain 'act of stranger'
if escape is caused by strangers where D had no control, and strangers actions were unreasonably foreseeable - complete defence
46
Case for 'act of stranger'
Perry v Kendricks Transport Limited
47
Facts of perry v Kendricks Transport Limited
D kept old coach on wasteland. C approached 2 boys who lit a match and dropped in petrol tank of coach, C suffered injuries.
48
Held in Perry v kendricks Transport Limited
D could not be liable as the 'escape' was brough out by act of stranger
49
explain 'act of god'
Event that happens independently of any human action - complete defence
50
Case for 'act of god' in ryland v fletcher
Carstairs v Taylor
51
Facts of carstairs v Taylor
C stored rise on ground floor of a warehouse, D who used upstairs floor had a rat gnawed through a gutter box, caused water to drain. Heavy rainfall caused roof to leak and damage rice
52
Held in carstairs v taylor
D could not be liable as the rain and the rats actions were seen as an act of god
53
Explain 'statutory authority'
Public authorities acting under power, like road workers - only defence if nuisance doesnt exceed that which is authorised
54
Case for statutory authority in rylands v fletcher
green v Chelsea waterworks
55
Facts of green v Chelsea water works
Water main burts causing damage to C's land, however D was authorised to keep the high pressure
56
Held in Green v Chelsea water works
D were not liable as the 'escape' wasnt due to negligence and the act was authorised by parliment
56
Held in Green v Chelsea water works
D were not liable as the 'escape' wasnt due to negligence and the act was authorised by parliment
57
Explain consent/benefit in rylands v fletcher
Is C recieves benefit from the thing accumulated, they may be deemed to have consented to the accumulation
58
Case for consent/benefit
Peters v Prince of wales theatre
59
Facts of Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre
C's shop was damaged when water pipes from sprinkler system burst due to icy conditions
60
Held in Peters v Prince of Wales theatre
D not liable, sprinkler system was seen as a benefit for both C and D.

A level Law: Tort Law (16 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions