Defences in Negligence

?
Nettleship v Weston (1971)
The claimant knew the risks in driving with a learner, but in checking insurance had maintained his rights to compensation.
1 of 30
White v Blackmore (1972)
Signs at a jalopy race, and the exclusion clause the driver signed were enough to exclude liability for death.
2 of 30
Smith v Baker (1891)
The claimant had not accepted the risks of his employment as he continuously complained
3 of 30
Imperial Chemical Industries v Shatwell (1965)
The claimants acted in direct opposition to safety advice given them by their statutorily responsible company , so they were seen to have volunteered to the risk and due to the companies efforts they were not vicariously liable.
4 of 30
Wooldridge v Sumner (1963)
Volenti was proven because the man would have known that in sporting cases, errors of judgement could be made and he positioned himself closely.
5 of 30
Morris v Murray (1990)
The C knew the D was drunk when he got into his plane with him.
6 of 30
Dann v Hamilton (1939)
Court found for the plaintiff even though she knew that the D was drunk.
7 of 30
Pitts v Hunt (1990)
The C encouraged the D's reckless behaviour, but when he sued him for negligent drunk driving resulting in his injury, the D could not defend using volenti as it is excluded in the Road Traffic Act (1988) because a motorbike is an uninsured vehicle.
8 of 30
Baker v Hopkins (1959)
A rescuer does not break the chain of causation by voluntarily intervening - the D was liable for all the people who died in his well including the rescuer because it was his negligence in letting the CO leak.
9 of 30
Haynes v Harwood (1935)
The policeman's reckless behaviour in trying to stop the runaway horses was for a purpose so there was no volenti.
10 of 30
Cutler v United Dairies (1933)
There was no need for the 'rescuer' to go and calm down crazy horses that were not hurting anyone - no liability.
11 of 30
Condon v Basi (1985)
An especially aggressive tackle broke the C's leg. There is only volenti for the normal rules of the game.
12 of 30
Sayers v Harlow UDC (1958)
The claimant was stuck in the toilet and incurred harm when climbing out. Damages were reduced due to cn.
13 of 30
Yachuk v Oliver Blais Co Ltd (1949)
The defendant was held wholly liable in negligence (no cn) for selling petrol to a 9yo.
14 of 30
Evans v Souls Garage (2001)
Two 13 yo boys did cause cn by a third because they knew about the dangers of playing with petrol.
15 of 30
Gough v Thorne (1966)
A 13yo crossed in front of a lorry driver who waved her on, but got hit by an overtaking car. The cn enforced at 1st instance was dismissed on appeal.
16 of 30
Morales v Eccleston (1991)
11yo chased a ball across the road and was hit by a driver going 20mph. He was held 20% liable and this was increased to 75%
17 of 30
Russell v Smith (2003)
10yo cycled across the road and was hit by 30mph car and his cn was 75% which was then reduced to 50%
18 of 30
Jackson v Murray and another (2015)
13yo was hit at 50mph whilst getting off a marked school bus. Cn adjusted from 90% to 70 to 50
19 of 30
probert v Moore (2012)
No cn for a 13yo hit at 45mph
20 of 30
Froam v Butcher (1976)
damages reduced by 20% because he didn't wear a seatbelt.
21 of 30
Owens v Brummell (1977)
No cn for failure to wear a seatbelt, but 20% because he knew he was drunk.
22 of 30
Traynor v Donavan (1978)
No cn if the passenger had no knowledge the driver was over the drink drive limit.
23 of 30
Green v Gaymer Lawtel (1999)
The court tries to take an objective view on whether the C should have known the D was drunk. Witnesses as to his state. 20% cn reduction.
24 of 30
Joslyn v Berryman (2003)
Australian case in which there were 60% cn reduction for getting in the car with the drunk guy. standard is whether a sober person would accept the lift, not if a drunk person would.
25 of 30
Booth v White (2003)
No cn as it was decided the C had no duty to check the driver was over the limit.
26 of 30
Malone v Rowan (1984)
This case followed the decision in Traynor (no cn reduction due to ignorance) despite the 4 other passengers who admitted they knew the driver was in no state to drive.
27 of 30
Smith v Finch (2009)
suggestion that a cyclist should be liable for any injuries that would have, on the balance of probabilities been avoidable with a helmet. This has not been enforced, as stated in HC Sinclair
28 of 30
HC Sinclair v Joyner (2015)
The C was held 25% cn liably, but not due to no helmet.
29 of 30
Jaynes v IMI (Kynoch) Ltd (1985)
The C was held 100% CN. Later cases like Anderson v Newham College (2003) have overruled this and decided that 100% CN= a break in the chain of causation.
30 of 30

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Signs at a jalopy race, and the exclusion clause the driver signed were enough to exclude liability for death.

Back

White v Blackmore (1972)

Card 3

Front

The claimant had not accepted the risks of his employment as he continuously complained

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

The claimants acted in direct opposition to safety advice given them by their statutorily responsible company , so they were seen to have volunteered to the risk and due to the companies efforts they were not vicariously liable.

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Volenti was proven because the man would have known that in sporting cases, errors of judgement could be made and he positioned himself closely.

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Law of Tort resources »