Defences

Question 1

ICI v Shatwell

Answer 1

Volenti (a very narrow defence, facts have to be extreme to support a claim in volenti)
Two brothers were meddling with explosives, they run out of cable so couldn’t get the prescribed 80 yards away.
Volenti made out.
- rarely applicable in employment

Question 2

Morris v Murray

Answer 2

Morris has willingly accepted the risk - Volenti made out

Question 3

Wooldridge v Sumner

Answer 3

The photographer gets injured and sues jockey in negligence, because he rode the horse too quickly. Riding was not negligence and the spectator assumes the risk that is ordinarily involved in the sport.
Volenti defence applied

Question 4

Jones v Livox Quarries

Answer 4

Contributory negligence will arise if the plaintiff ought reasonably to have forseen that, if he did ot act as a reasonable prudent man, he might hurt himself..

Question 5

Froom v Butcher

Answer 5

25% reduction for injuries which would not have occurred with seatbelts;
15% reduction for those injuries made worse by the absence of a seatbelt;
no reduction for injuries which would have occurred either way.

• can apply to cases of wearing a helmet when you’re cycling, because everybody knows that you’re supposed wear a helmet - EXAM!!!

Question 6

Corr v IBC Vehicles

Answer 6

He acted in a way which he would not have done but for the injury which the employer’s breach caused him to suffer. This being so, I do not think his conduct in taking his own life can be said to fall outside the scope of the duty which his employer owed him.’

Question 7

St George v Home Office

Answer 7

Causal potency - it was a causal factor of some sort, but it wasn’t a POTENT causal factor - the age indicated that it was too remote (he became addicted at 16/17)
Relative blameworthiness
- it could be contributory negligent, but here it was just too remote

Question 8

Jackson v Murray (leading authority)

Answer 8

• Should he have thought that it’s possible that someone would have run out.
• Both the girl and the driver were negligent.
• Standard of care of the girl - reasonable child of the age 12/13 - a child should have known that it’s reckless to run on the road.
• the SC scaled the damages to 50/50

Question 9

Pitts v Hunt

Answer 9

the fact that the claimant & defendant were engaged in illegal conduct does not automatically mean the plaintiff’s claim must fail. - the historical doctrine of attainder does not take away your rights

Question 10

Revill v Newbery

Answer 10

plaintiff breaking into a shed on an allotment, the owner actually sleeps in the shed with a shotgun. They rattle the door and the guy shoots them. The said he was intending to frighten the intruders, but he seriously injures one of the burglars. The burglar sues in negligence.

• illegality defence rejected. The act was clearly negligent, you don’t just weak up and shoot
• the fact that they intended to rob was IRRELEVANT
• the illegality was a mere background fact, context, for what was grossly negligent

Question 11

Vellino v Chief Constable

Answer 11

jumps out of the window and is seriously injured

• sues the two policemen who were in the room with him
• this was barred by the defence of illegality
• he was avoiding arrest
• cannot recover

Question 12

Gray v Thames Train

Answer 12

‘You cannot recover compensation for loss which you have suffered in consequence of your own criminal act.’