Tort - General Negligence - Defences Cases Flashcards
Dann v Hamilton
Consent - Drunk Drivers
Accepting to ride with a drunk driver will not amount to consent of the risks associated with his drunk driving.
Morris v Murray
Consent - Drunk Drivers
C & D drinking all day - flew a plane - crashed
Where intoxication of the driver is so glaringly dangerous, C can be taken to have voluntarily accepted the risk of injury and waived the right to compensation.
Smith v Baker
Consent - Employees
C injured when craye dropped load on him. Employer tried to argue consent - held that just because C worked knowing risks does not mean he consented in law to risks.
For consent to be valid there must be no doubt that C can truly decide whether or not to accept the risk. Employees act under a duty therefore have no real freedom of choice.
Haynes v Harwood
Consent - rescuers
Rescuers will not be considered to act voluntarily, they are deemed to have been compelled by moral instinct.
Ashton v Turner and Pitts v Hunt
Defence - illegality
C and D escaping after burglary - D drove negligently and C injured.
Where there is a close connection between illegal activity of C and the injury which he suffers in such a way that it would go against public policy to allow a remedy, D can raise defence of illegality.
Reeves v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
Contributory Negligence
Deceased hanged himself whilst in police custody; held that he was 50% to blame so only 50% damages recoverable.
Where D can show that the claimant was careless and that this carelessness contributed to his harm, damages will be reduced accordingly.
Caswell v Powell Duffryn
Courts usually generous re. contributory negligence of employees, particularly where working conditions are noisy, repetitive or dull (and it’s expected these factors could lead to claimant taking less care of his safety).
Gough v Thorne
Contributory Negligence - Children
3 children (17, 10 and 13) crossing road.
Young children cannot be found to be contributorily negligent, older child may be but will be judged against what can be expected from someone their age.
Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council
Contributory Negligence - Children - Trespassers
Two boys (14) repairing rotting boat - fell on one - 25% contributory negligent.
Young children cannot be found to be contributorily negligent, older child may be but will be judged against what can be expected from someone their age.
Baker v TE Hopkins
Contributory Negligence - Rescuers
Two employees + rescuer down a well and overcome by fumes - died
Cont. Neg. will be rare for rescuers; it will only arise if rescuer has shown a wholly unreasonable disregard for his own safety.
Jones v Boyce
Contributory Negligence - Imminent danger
C realised coupling mechanism in coach had broken - anticipated crash and jumped out - injured.
Where C is in imminent danger, the reasonableness of his actions will be considered ‘in the agony of the moment’.
Sayers v Harlow UDC
Contributory Negligence - Imminent danger
C trapped in public toilet due to D’s negligence - tried to climb out and slip - damages reduced by 25%
Where C is in immediate danger, decision considered in agony of the moment.
Froom v Butcher
Contributory Negligence - Seatbelts
Failure to wear a seatbelt can lead to the following reductions:
- If injuries would have been avoided: 25%
- If injuries would have been less severe: 15%
- If no difference would have been made: 0%
Caps v Miller
Contributory Negligence - Crash helmets
Similar to seatbelt reductions:
- If injuries would have been avoided: 25%
- If injuries would have been less severe: 15%
- If no difference would have been made: 0%
Own v Bimmell
Contributory Negligence - Drunk drivers
C and D drinking together before getting into car.
Passengers who accept to ride with drunk drivers will see their damages reduced, even if they themselves were highly intoxicated.
