C's negligence must be 'contributory'
- Must be cause in fact or part of the damage suffered by the claimant. C's injury must result from the particular risk in which is negligent
- Even though the claimant didn't foresee the risk, distinction of 2 injuries was too narrow to be drawn. Answer would be different if the claimant had been shot from other source that would be coincidence, no increase of risk. (Jones v Livox Quarries)
Failure to take safety precautions
- Claimant's negligence contributes to the accident. To severity of harm suffered. Claimant will normally lead to a reduction in damages.
- Moped driver failing to wear a helmet (O'Connell v Jackson)
- Failure for a passenger to wear a seatbelt, 25% reduction if passenger is injured. Have to prove that wearing a seatbelt would have made a difference. (Froom v Butcher)
- D failed to prove that the failure aggrevated injuries. Whatever is just and equitable. Courts take account of capability and responsibility. (Owens v Brimmell)
Comments
No comments have yet been made