Tort Defences

Question 1

3 part test for negligence claim

Answer 1

Duty of care
Breach of duty
D caused damage
Defences

Question 2

defence in tort

Answer 2

it can mean that D is not liable or damages may be reduced

Question 3

two defences in tort law

Answer 3

Contributory negligence
Consent

Question 4

what is contributory negligence?

Answer 4

The Law Reform Act 1945: any damages awarded to the claimant can be reduced proportionately if it can be proven that C contributed to their own harm.

happens when both C and D are responsible for the injury suffered by C.

partial defence (not a way to escape liability completely)

Question 5

remedy for contributory negligence

Answer 5

Compensation

judge sets out the full amount for compensation

if contributory negligence is proven, the judge decides what percentage C is responsible and then reduces the amount by that percentage

Question 6

Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council

Answer 6

facts: child fell into an excavation on a building site owned by the council
held: contributory negligence was considered, but court ruled in favor of the child due to duty of care.

Question 7

Jayes v IMI (Kynoch) Ltd
(where 100% reduction might be appropriate)

Answer 7

facts: C cut their finger off on a machine
held: employer was liable for breach of health and safety rules but C was 100% contributorily negligent as he admitted fault.

Question 8

O’Connell v Jackson (damages might be reduced when C doesn’t wear safety equipment)

Answer 8

facts: The plaintiff, thrown over handlebars, suffered a head injury.
held: no contributory negligence as D’s medical witness recognized a helmet could have lessened the severity.

Question 9

Froom v Butcher (damages might be reduced when C doesn’t wear safety equipment)

Answer 9

facts: the plaintiff, injured in a car accident, wasn’t wearing a seatbelt.
held: court reduced damages, stating contributory negligence due to not using a seatbelt. this deduction applies only to injuries preventable by wearing one.

Question 10

Stinton v Stinton (damages might be reduced when C doesn’t wear safety equipment)

Answer 10

facts: brothers drank until early morning, C intended to be driven home by his brother, had a car accident.
held: damages not reduced as C knew brother wasn’t fit to drive and didn’t wear seatbelt.

Question 11

what is consent (volenti)?

Answer 11

‘no injury is willing’,
or ‘to one who volunteers, no harm is done’

when the claimant accepts the risk of harm there can be no damages.

Question 12

consent (volenti) defence requirements

Answer 12

Knowledge of the precise risk involved
Exercise free choice by C
Voluntary acceptance of the risk