sem 2 - last lecture (6)

Question 1

once a tortious claim has been estbalished what is the defendant entitle to

Answer 1

any potential defences wiht onus of proof on the defenant not the claimant

Question 2

whatrt are the defences you might want to rasie if accused of comitting tortious act

Answer 2

contributory negligence

violenti non fit injura - voluntary assumption of risk

ex turpi causa no oritur actio

act of God

Personal Defence

Necessity

Question 3

what is act of God in short

Answer 3

somethin happens that no on could control

haev no regress over other indi

cort decided if responsiblity of park to keep trees safe so negligence if they weren’t doing proper/regular inspections

Question 4

personal defence

Answer 4

aka self defence

allowed to take reasonable action/reasonable force to defend ourself

proprotionte to threat - court looks at context of situation to see if you did to mich

Question 5

necessity

Answer 5

the tort/actin was necessary to rpevent a much greater than harm

has to be proprtionate to the threat/response

Question 6

contributory negligence

Question 7

what is partial defence in contributory neglgience

Answer 7

youve done somethhing negligently casuing harm but the one who suffered hatm casused/contributed to some of injuries/harm/damages

Question 8

what does court do in contributory negigence cases - in relation to damages

Answer 8

herswhat yu fif to contribute to teh case and then reduce damges to account for that

Question 9

what does the law reform contributory act 1945 set out

Answer 9

in cetian cirmcunstances what reductions wil be made

Question 10

what 3 cases do we use for contributory negligence

Answer 10

st george v home office 2008

Jackson v Murray 2015

Nettleship v Western 1971

Question 11

what happend in ST G V HOME OFFICE 2008

Answer 11

prisoner well known to police in young offenders

on top bunk fell off seriously injured - brain injury

fell off casue he had seizure as a result of being addicted to drugs and alochool and prison knows he has history of seizures

Question 12

what did the parties and court say in st g v home office 2008

Answer 12

prsino say we might be responsible for for ptting you on top bunk knowing you at risk but you partly responsible by being a drug addict

court says no contributory negligence as situationbeen so closely connected w the harm that has been done

and prioson was tryna say casue you’ve been drug addict you responsible for injuries arising 10 years later- but xourt sayonig that is too far removed

prison entirley responsibel

Question 13

what did st g v home office teach us about contributry negligence

Answer 13

you must be contributing actively in sufficient closeness to the event

so no contributory negligence

Question 14

what happened in jackson v murray

Answer 14

school bus

13yr old ets of school bus crosses road and gets hit by a car and injured

driver (murray) isnt speeding but not drivinig carefully/slow enough considering school bus is there
so considered not driving carefully/sufficient enough

wants to bring claim against driver saying driver should’ve been more careful

but 13 yr old girl should be somewhat responsible for her safety

Question 15

what awas the decision in jackson v murray

Answer 15

injury loss / damage 50 50 split

driver should’ve been more cautious approaching a school bus
13 yr old shouldve been more cauions

Question 16

what happened in nettleship v weston

Answer 16

learner driver case

woman goes out driving w neighbour/friend who teaches her to drive and they have an accident

neighbourfried injured and tries to pursue

25% reduction each for damages 1

Question 17

what does nettleshhip and western teach us

Answer 17

never totally get put of tortious act by way of contributory negligence

just casue you a ;earner driver dont mran nish

Question 18

whats the tagline/key thing for voluntary assumption of risk

Answer 18

to the one who knows of the harm - no harm can be done

Question 19

voluntary assumption of risk is all about

Answer 19

voluntary consent

Question 20

if you can prove someone voluntarily consented to the harm casued to hem then

Answer 20

you have completed defence you not gonan be reliable

Question 21

what are the two situations in whihch you have completed defence

Answer 21

consent to infliction of harm e.g. medical

consent to risk of harm inflicted accidentally -e.g when doing ultra high risk activities - my be asked to sign away righs to make claims should you be injured

Question 22

what would be an example of an unfair term in the contract

Answer 22

i wont hodl anyone responsible for my injuries even where they have done something negligently

Question 23

when do you always ahve a claim regardless of if you signed away your rights or not

Answer 23

if someone acc does something negligent and wrong e.g.they pack your bag wrong

Question 24

what case do we use for voluntary assumption of risk

Answer 24

morris v murray

Question 25

what happened in morris v murray 1990

Answer 25

pilot and frined go otu drinkign then decide to take airplane for a flight crashes pilot killed oilot frined wants to pusrue claim against dead pilots estate saying you negligently flew plane when drank and this was v dangerosu for both of us court says -violenti non fit injura - to one who consesnt no hatrm it was also partly your idea to go in aeroplane when you were drunk and it wasn't safe so can't then make claim for damage that arises this was a compete defense - no liability/responsibility

Question 26

talk to me about volunteer risk

Answer 26

when someoen goes into rescue to what eztent are they willingly accepting risk professional accept level of risk reasonable in their circumstances - in fireman cases there willbe a point where teh level of risk you experieicnign beyond that you've consented for consent holds you in realm of safe and reasosnable workn but here you also expected to be of reasonable fortitude so standard of lelvel of toleranc efor fig just read over slide bfore the thing

Question 27

what does ex turpi cuasa mean

Answer 27

you can't amke prosnal injury claim/damages that arise out of your own criminal activity

Question 28

ex turpi causa is the x principle

Answer 28

equitable principle

Question 29

what does the equitbale pricple prevent criminals from doing

Answer 29

brignin caim against fellow criminal

Question 30

if do somehing illegal and in the proces you get hurt and you pursue a claim agaisnt whoever has hurt you you might have no luck becasue your actions were founded on

Answer 30

illegality

Question 31

want arent you supooed to be able to do from crminal acitivyt

Answer 31

profit

Question 32

does ex turpi cuassa maena a crimanl who get shur can never make claims against people and expand

Answer 32

no depends on what is going on in the situation

Question 33

what cases do we use for ex turpi causa

Answer 33

vellino v chief constable of greater machester 2001 revill v newberry 1996

Question 34

vellino v chif constable

Answer 34

petty criminal kown to manc police he is sa serious esape artist police go to arrest him ther is a scrap andhe escapes jumps out of 2nd floor and suffers brian injury he says police owe him duty of care ass alreadybeen arrested and you owed me a duty of care to not let me jump out of window. + you kenw my hispopry and that i was that kid of person court says no

Question 35

why did court say no in vellino v chief constable

Answer 35

this was an example of tryna found your claim you escaped custody ad got injured in the process - that's your problem so police not gonnabe liable for that

Question 36

what happend in revill v newberry

Answer 36

trespasser got shot by man waiting in shed for him reville pursued action for neglgiencec reslting in personal injury and also claimed occupiers laiblit newberry tried to defend saying he cant be held accountable for someone trying to burgle his property and gets shot they say reville comes to place alot so knkew about risk and consented - but court says no he didnt knwo about riskof ebin g shot and no one warnedhim then they say ex turpi causa - mr revilles actions were illegal and he was illeally tryna burgle and trespass - in process of ebing ilegal he got hurt so shouldn't be able to reclaim loss court sya just cause reville doing something illegal dont mean he excluded from all claims of personal innjury non criminal still held to standard rewuired in occupirs laibltiy - i.e. duty of care to trespassers and there was somethign he could do about the danger so court says you cant use illeflaity defence t excuse your own extreme , disproportionate illegal actions

Question 37

remedies

Question 38

reemdies ar ewaht you get at the

Answer 38

end

Question 39

we looking at remedies in

Answer 39

common law

Question 40

non pecuniary damages are not

Answer 40

moeny

Question 41

non pecuniary damages are

Answer 41

own pain and suffering and loss of future opportunities dont have a value got to work it out conceptually anfd argue about it

Question 42

what are pecuniary damges

Answer 42

money e.g. how much money did you loose when couldnt go to work for 10 weeks as a result of the tort

Question 43

what are you expected to do with you rlosses

Answer 43

mitigate

Question 44

what does mitigate losses means

Answer 44

ahve to make effort not to loose to much and make losses worse

Question 45

example of mtiitgation

Answer 45

if doctor sasy you can work after x weeks you should go back

Question 46

waht does ciurt try to reduce

Answer 46

amount of additinoal claim dont wanna be overgeneorus they want to calculate what you actually lost

Question 47

give example of expectation of mitigation

Answer 47

going to mecical appointments and looking after your own conditins - not wilfully contributing to them being slow in recovey

Question 48

what do msot peopel want a a result of tortious acts

Answer 48

common law remedy

Question 49

what is time limit of equitable remedy

Answer 49

none

Question 50

what can injunctions be

Answer 50

prohibitory or mandatory

Question 51

prohibitory injunction meaning

Answer 51

you must stop doing simething e.g. playing stuff at 3 am

Question 52

injunction meaning

Answer 52

order that court tells someone to do something

Question 53

injunctions are not cash they are an

Answer 53

equitable remedy

Question 54

you can only get an injunction if

Answer 54

you've also been honest in the process

Question 55

anything beyond money is x on the courts

Answer 55

discretionary