Defences (Negligence) Flashcards
Defences available for Negligence
Voluntary Assumption of Risk
Contributory Negligence
Illegality
Voluntary Assumption of Risk Test
Nettleship v Weston
Nettleship v Weston Test
- C had full knowledge of nature and extent of risk; and
- C willingly accepted the risk of being injured due to D’s negligence
Voluntary Assumption of Risk
Rare for employers to succeed with defence against employees because of doubt as to whether truly voluntary
Smith v Baker
Voluntary Assumption of Risk
Rare for defence to succeed against rescuers
Haynes v Harwood
Voluntary Assumption of Risk
More successful against trespassers
Ratcliff v McConnell
Voluntary Assumption of Risk
Knowledge must be sufficient to inform the consent for voluntary assumption of risk
Dann v Hamilton
To prove contributory negligence, D must show that:
- C was careless; and
- C’s careless behaviour contributed to C’s harm
Statute that operates to reduce claimants damage if can show contributory negligence
s.1(1) Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
Contributory Negligence:
Courts are typically generous and rarely reduce employee’s damages, especially where work is dull/repetitive
Caswell v Powell Duffryn
Contributory Negligence:
Children are judged according to their own standards (would child of that age have taken more care for their safety?)
Gough v Thorne
Contributory Negligence:
Findings of contributory negligence very rare against rescuers - only when rescuer has shown ‘wholly unreasonable disregard for his/her own safety’
Baker v T E Hopkins and Son
Contributory Negligence:
In situations of imminent dangers, there will be no finding of contributory negligence where C’s response is reasonable
Jones v Boyce
D may have a defence if C was involved in an illegal enterprise when injured
Pitts v Hunt
