Contributory Negligence Flashcards
(14 cards)
Which factor does NOT influence the percentage reduction for contributory negligence?
A. The claimant’s share in causing the accident
B. The claimant’s share in causing the damage
C. The claimant’s financial need
D. Special considerations (e.g., child’s age, emergency)
A. Section 1 of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945.
Explanation: s 1(1) provides that if a claimant’s damage is partly their own fault, the court may reduce damages “to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable”
What two elements must a defendant prove to succeed in contributory negligence?
A. That the claimant consented to the risk and had capacity
B. That the claimant failed to take reasonable care for their own safety and this failure contributed to their damage
C. That the claimant signed a waiver and accepted all risks
D. That the accident was unforeseeable and the claimant failed to warn
B. That the claimant failed to take reasonable care for their own safety and this failure contributed to their damage.
Explanation: Following Jones v Livox, the defendant must show the claimant’s lack of reasonable care and that this directly contributed to the harm
How does contributory negligence affect the damages award?
A. It bars recovery completely
B. It converts the claim into a contract action
C. It reduces the award by a proportion that is just and equitable
D. It increases the defendant’s liability
C. It reduces the award by a proportion that is just and equitable.
Explanation: The court apportions blame between claimant and defendant, reducing the claimant’s damages accordingly
Which group receives special allowance against a finding of contributory negligence?
A. Independent contractors
B. Claimants who sign waivers
C. Emergency responders who rush into danger
D. Consumers
D. Emergency responders who rush into danger.
Explanation: Courts are reluctant to penalize rescuers, children, or those in emergencies for contributory fault
In Davies v Swan Motor Co [1949], the claimant stood on the running board of a moving lorry and was injured. Why was contributory negligence found?
A. He failed to take reasonable care by placing himself in a dangerous position
B. He consented to the risk by buying a ticket
C. The driver owed no duty to warn
D. He signed a waiver disclaiming liability
A. He failed to take reasonable care by placing himself in a dangerous position.
Explanation: Standing outside the cab was negligent and contributed to his injury
In Owens v Brimmell [1977], a passenger rode with a drunk driver and was injured. Why was contributory negligence found?
A. The passenger assumed the risk (volenti)
B. The passenger failed to avoid a known risk by not refusing the ride
C. The driver had no duty of care
D. Illegality of the act barred recovery
B. The passenger failed to avoid a known risk by not refusing the ride.
Explanation: Knowing the driver’s intoxication, the passenger did not take reasonable steps to protect himself
Under Froom v Butcher [1976], how is failure to wear a seatbelt treated?
A. Always bars recovery
B. Requires proof of causation only
C. Contributory negligence with percentage reductions based on effect
D. Converts claim into contract
C. Contributory negligence with percentage reductions based on effect.
Explanation: Damages are reduced (e.g. 25 %, 15 %, or 0 %) depending on whether a seatbelt would have prevented or mitigated injury
In Sayers v Harlow UDC [1958], the claimant fell while trying to escape a locked public lavatory, relying on a flimsy roll-holder. Why was her damages reduced by 25 %?
A. She consented to the risk
B. She failed to take reasonable care by relying on an unstable fixture
C. The council owed no duty to fix the holder
D. The accident was unforeseeable
D. She failed to take reasonable care by relying on an unstable fixture.
Explanation: Her own negligent choice to use the roll-holder contributed to her injury, warranting a 25 % reduction
Why might courts favour contributory negligence over volenti where consent is unclear?
A. Contributory negligence recognizes some claimant fault without barring all recovery
B. Contributory negligence has no policy basis
C. Volenti is only available in contract
D. Volenti is a partial defence
A. Contributory negligence recognizes some claimant fault without barring all recovery.
Explanation: Unlike volenti (a complete bar), contributory negligence allows partial recovery when the claimant bears some blame
In Harrison v BRB [1981], why was one rescuer’s claim reduced for contributory negligence?
A. He had no duty to rescue
B. He contributed to creating the peril before rescuing
C. He signed a disclaimer
D. He was a professional rescuer
B. He contributed to creating the peril before rescuing.
Explanation: If the rescuer’s own negligence partly caused the emergency, a reduction is fair
How do courts handle contributory negligence when multiple defendants are involved?
A. Reduce each defendant’s share equally
B. First reduce total damages, then split liability among defendants
C. Ignore contributory negligence against joint tortfeasors
D. Hold only one defendant liable
C. First reduce total damages, then split liability among defendants.
Explanation: The overall reduction is applied to the claimant’s award before apportioning each defendant’s share (Fitzgerald v Lane)
Which factor does NOT influence the percentage reduction for contributory negligence?
A. The claimant’s share in causing the accident
B. The extent their conduct contributed to the damage
C. The claimant’s financial need
D. Special considerations (e.g., age, emergency)
D. The claimant’s financial need.
Explanation: Reductions focus on fault and causation, with possible mitigating factors (youth, duress), but not on claimant’s personal wealth
How is contributory negligence assessed for a child claimant?
A. By comparing to a reasonable adult standard
B. Using the same test as for rescuer protection
C. Against the standard of a reasonable child of the same age and experience
D. Children cannot be held contributorily negligent
C. Against the standard of a reasonable child of the same age and experience.
Explanation: Courts adjust the “reasonable care” test to a child’s age and understanding, recognizing their lesser capacity
A pedestrian, three times over the drink-drive limit, stumbles into the road and is hit. How will contributory negligence apply?
A. No reduction—pedestrians have absolute priority
B. Reduction only if they caused the collision
C. Significant reduction or complete bar, as their intoxication contributed to the danger
D. Only volenti applies, not contributory negligence
D. Significant reduction or complete bar, as their intoxication contributed to the danger.
Explanation: Intoxication that contributes to risk is treated as contributory negligence, heavily reducing or barring recovery
