LAW P2 TORT (Defences)

Question 1

What are the different defences available in tort?

Answer 1

• Contributory negligence
• Volenti non fit injuria
• Defences specific to private nuisance and RvF (prescription, statutory authority)

Question 2

What is the definition of contributory negligence?

Answer 2

A partial defence where the claimant is found to have contributed to their own harm through lack of reasonable care. Damages are reduced in proportion to the claimants fault

Question 3

What is the case for contributory negligence?

Answer 3

Revill v Newbury, the claimants damages were reduced to reflect his responsibility for his own injuries

Question 4

What is the definition of volenti non fit injuria??

Answer 4

A full defence where the claimant voluntarily consents to the risk of harm, knowing the nature and extent of the risk involved

Question 5

What is the case for volenti non fit injuria

Answer 5

Titchener v British railway boards, the defendants did not owe a duty to a visitor who was fully aware of the risks

Question 6

What are the defences specific to private nuisnace?

Answer 6

• Prescription – where the defendant has carried out an activity for over 20 years without complaints of a nuisance, the activity is considered to not be a nuisance
• Statutory authority – where the activity is authorised to be carried out by the law

Question 7

What are the cases for the defences specific to private nuisance?

Answer 7

• (prescription) Sturges v Bridgman, the activity only took on the nature of being a nuisance when the doctor built his consulting room
• (statutory authoirty) Wheeler v JJ Saunders Ltd, the defendant built the pig house with planning permission

Question 8

What are the defences specific to Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer 8

• Act of god – a natural event that could not be foreseen or prevented
• Act of a stanger (third party) - a third party act that breaks the chain of causation

Question 9

What are the cases for the defences specific to Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer 9

• Nichols v marsland, the flooding was a natural event that no one could reasonably have foreseen or prevented
• Rickards v Lothian, the defendant was not liable as the damage resulted from a stangers deliberate act