Defences Flashcards
Kirkham v CC of Greater Manchester
CAPACITY TO GIVE VALID CONSENT
Facts?
- C was prisoner in police custody who committed suicide.
Principle?
- Police argued volenti which failed as evidence that C was not of sound mind meant he did not have capacity to consent to risk associated with suicide.
Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
CAPACITY TO GIVE VALID CONSENT
Facts?
- Again, suicide of prisoner in police station. Police aware he was suicide risk.
Principle?
- Ds could not argue violent as this was the very action they were required by their DOC to prevent.
Morris v Murrary
FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE RISKS
Facts? - C accepted lift with a drunk pilot. - C was also drunk. - Did he appreciate the danger? Principle? - C was not so drunk he was incapable of understanding nature/extent of risk - willingly embarked on flight knowing D was drunk and likely to be negligent.
- Also relevant to agreement to risk of injury - this was equivalent to ‘meddling with an unexploded bomb’.
Nettleship v Weston
AGREEMENT TO RISK OF INJURY
Facts?
- Claimant was driving instructor who sued pupil for injuries caused by pupil’s negligent driving.
Principle?
- Fact he knew she was learner driver did not mean he consented to being injured by her.
- He asked her about insurance cover before agreeing to lessons - not consenting to risk of injury.
Dann v Hamilton
Facts?
- Claimant accepted lift with someone she knew was drunk.
- No consent due to know knowledge of the risk of injury, but no implied agreement either unless risk so extreme it is equivalent to ‘meddling with an unexploded bomb’.
- Risk of injury must be so incredibly likely to materialise that by agreeing to take part int he activity, C consents to the risk.
Ratcliffe v McConnell
Facts?
- Drunken student dived into swimming pool having not checked its depth.
- Implied agreement to run risk of injury established here.
Bowater v Rowley Regis Corporation
AGREEMENT TO RISK MUST BE VOLUNTARY
- C is not willing unless in a position to choose freely - freedom of choice predicates both full knowledge of the circumstances AND absence of any feeling of constraint (freedom of will).
ICI v Shatwell
- Employee held to have consented voluntarily to the risk of using shorter wires although regulations said to use longer wires.
Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing Club
Facts?
- C injured while watching a race.
Principle?
- Claim failed because spectators consent to the risks attached with spectating a sport. Inherent to the sport.
Smoldon v Whitworth
- Court said participants of sporting events consent to the normal risks of the game.
Condon v Basi
Facts?
- Footballer held liable for breaking another player’s leg in foul tackle.
Principle?
- Defence of consent failed because D’s serious/dangerous foul tackle showed reckless disregard for C’s safety - C had not consented to the tackle.
- C unlikely to have consented to something outside the rules of the game.
Baker v T.E. Hopkins & SOns
Facts?
- Baker held to be rescuer when he helped some workmen trapped in a mine.
- He was killed by the poisonous fumes in the mine.
Principle?
- He had the capacity and knowledge of nature and extent of risk.
- Agreement not voluntary though, acted out of compulsive desire to save life.
Jones v Livox Quarries
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Facts?
- C was riding on the tow bar of a vehicle involved in accident.
Principle?
- For finding of contributory negligence, there are three elements to establish.
1. C failed to take reasonable steps for own safety.
2. Failure contributed to C’s injury.
3. Injury was within type of risk run by claimant. - Also authority for injury being within risk run by C.
- C ran risk he would fall from vehicle if he rode in unsuitable position.
- Would not have bene contributorily negligent if struck by rock whilst on tow bar, as that was not the risk he was running - that would not be connected to why what he was doing was unreasonable.
Froom v Butcher
Facts?
- Wearing of seatbelt not compulsory.
Principle?
- C contributorily negligent because it was imprudent not to wear one and failure to do so contributed to C’s injuries.
Jones v Boyce
Facts?
- Runaway horse and carriage case.
- C jumped from it.
Principle?
- Not negligent.
- Reasonably believed coach was going to overturn so jumped from it and broke his leg.
