General Defences Flashcards Preview

Tort > General Defences > Flashcards

Flashcards in General Defences Deck (34):
1

Volenti criteria

Claimant:
- knew of risk
- voluntarily agreed to the risk of being injured by D
(- voluntarily agreed that there should be no legal liability for this)

2

Plaintiff accepted lift with drunk pilot

Morris v Murray - claimant's drunkness had to be taken into account by court when determining whether he appreciated the danger involved

3

Voluntary consent is in addition to knowledge. Employees who know risks are not necessarily voluntarily agreeing

Smith v Charles Baker

4

Implied consent - spectators at dangerous sport

Hall v Brookland Auto Racing Club

5

Claimant must possess mental capacity to consent

Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police

6

Volenti will not apply to a rescuer

Haynes v Harwood

7

Volenti may apply in non-urgent situation so person who interferes is not a rescuer

Cutler v United Dairies

8

Driving instructor had not agreed to be injured by learner

Nettleship v Weston

9

No implied agreement unless risk is so extreme that it is the equivalent of meedling with an unexploded bomb

Dann v Hamilton

10

Drunk student dived into swimming pool without checking depth

Ratcliffe v O'Connell

11

Volenti cannot be used by motorists against their passengers

s149 Road traffic Act

12

Guilty of contributory negligence if he reasonably ought to have foreseen that if he did not act as a reasonably prudent man, he might be hurt

Jones v Livox

13

Contributory negligence - an obviously incorrect valuation should've put claimant on alert

Cavendish v Henry Spencer

14

It does not matter that the claimant has no broken the law

Froom v Butcher

15

Allowances are made for a claimant who has been placed in an emergency or difficult dilemma

Jones v Boyce

16

Courts will take into account the age of a child in determining the standard of care to be expected

Gough v Thorne

17

Rescuers will no be protected from contributory negligence if they created the danger in the first place

Harrison v BRB

18

Claimant's fault must contribute to his injury

Froom v Butcher
O'Connell v Jackson (no helmet)
Capps v Miller (failed to wear helmet properly)

19

Ex turpi causa

Courts will not compensate a claimant who is a wrongdoer or where it would be an affront to the public conscience to do so - Kirkham

20

Compensation denied to passender injured by getaway driver after they'd both been involved in burglary

Ashton v Turner

21

P and D both heavily intoxicated, P rode pillion of D’s motorbike, encouraging D to drive recklessly. Joint illegality made it impossible to apply a standard of care and action failed

Pitts v Hunt

22

There must be a nexus between the criminal act and the negligent act

Gray v Thames Trains

23

Self-defence - force must be reasonable and proportionate

Lane v Holloway
Creswell v Sirl (shooting dog threatening livestock ok)

24

Inevitable accident

Defendant does not intend in anyway and no avoidable by any such precautions as a reasonable man could be expected to take - Stanley v Powell (shot in eye)

25

D damned a natural stream, not liable when banks broke due to heavy rainfall

Nichols v Marsland

26

Paddling pool constructed requiring course of stream to be altered - heavy rainfall was not an Act of God - must be exceptional

Greenock

27

Necessity - trespassed to stop fire spreading

Cope v Sharpe (no2)

28

Homeless squatter not sufficient to constitute necessity for trespass

Southwark v Williams

29

Necessity doesn't apply to negligence

Rigby v CC of Northamptonshire

30

Statutory authority - absolute authority

Vaughan v Taff vale

31

Conditional statutory authority

Metropolitan District Asylum Board v Hill

32

Discretionary statutory authority

X v Bedfordshire CC

33

Duress

Gilbert v Stone

34

UCTA controls the exclusion of liability

Smith v Eric Bush