Defences to negligence: Flashcards
(15 cards)
Consent - Volenti non fit injuria
- full defence
- when the claimant accepts voluntary assumption of the risk of harm.
To succeed, the defendant has to show: - knowledge of the precise risk involved
- exercise of free choice by claimant
- a voluntary acceptance of risk
SUBJECTIVE
consent key cases:
stermer v lawson
smith v baker
haynes v harwood
ogwo v taylor
sidaways v governors of the royal hospital
ici v shatwell
wooldridge v sumner
stermer v lawson:
Legal Principle = Could not argue consent as they did not fully appreciate the risks
The claimant had borrowed the defendant’s motorbike however was not properly shown how to use the motorbike
smith v baker:
Legal Principle = He did not consent to the danger as he had no other choice
A worker was injured when a crane moved rocks over his head leading them to fall on him. He complained about the risks involved in the work taking place above his head
haynes v harwood:
Legal Principle = The defendant was not acting voluntarily as he was acting under a duty to protect the public
Defendant failed to adequately tether his house who injured a policeman when they tried to restrain him.
ogwo v taylor:
Legal Principle = They were exposed to unavoidable risks of injury and only met their duty so could not argue consent
Set fire to his house to burn off paint. C was a fireman attending the fire who then suffered severe burns from the heat despite wearing protective clothing
Sidaway v Governors of the Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Hospitals (1985)
Legal Principle = Doctors do not need to give a detailed explanation of remote side effects therefore no liability when they did not explain all possible consequences
The claimant suffered neck, shoulders and arm pain which she had a surgery for. The doctor did not explain that in less then 1% of these operations, paraplegia could be caused which did which she argued she did not consent to.
ICI v Shatwell
Legal Principle = Ignoring his employers instructions meant that he had voluntarily assumed the risk of injury therefore succeeding in volenti
They were quarry workers who were brothers, the brother followed his brothers instructions ignoring his employers instructions and therefore was injured.
Woolridge v Sumner
Legal Principle = The rider had not been negligent so there was no breach of duty due to an error in judgement
The claimant attended a horse show as a photographer, the rider was going too fast and lost control which injured the claimant. The rider owed spectators a duty of care however the rider had not been negligent
Sayers v Harlow Urban district council (CN)
Legal Principle = The damages were reduced by 25% due to the way she tried to escape
A women was trapped in a cubicle as the door lock became jammed, she tried to escape through the gap between the door and ceiling where she stood on the toilet roll holder which gave way under her.
Jayes v IMI(CN)
Legal Principle = The claimant was 100% contributory negligent as he took the guard off
The claimant lost a finger at work whilst cleaning a machine with the guard off however the claimant took the guard off. The company were negligent for the failure to notice
O’Connel v Jackson (CN)(1972)
Legal Principle = Damages were reduced by 15% as he suffered greater injuries due to a lack of helmet
A motorcyclist suffered an injury during a crash however was not wearing a helmet
froom and butcher(CN)
Legal Principle = They suffered greater injuries due to their lack of seatbelt so was reduced by 20%
The driver of a car was in a car crash when they were not wearing a seat belt
Stinton v Stinton (CN)
Legal Principle = If the passenger does not know or it is not obvious to a reasonable person that the driver is drunk, they may not decide to claim contributory negligence however accepting a lift from a drunk driver is contributory negligence
The claimant knew the driver was over the limit and therefore the damages were reduced by one third for accepting a lift from a drunk driver
Badger v Ministry of defence (CN)
Legal Principle = The claimant was aware of the risk of cigarettes which may have caused his cancer so it was reduced by 20%
Defendant had exposed the claimant to asbestos dust which led to them dying of lung cancer. However the claimant also smoked cigarettes
