Defences + Causation

Volenti non fit injuria

• If dealing with negligence use volenti as consent is about intentional tort.

• Claimant must subjectively appreciate the danger and accept the

specific risk of D’s carelessness , not merely know activity is dangerous

 Geary v JD Wetherspoon HC — ‘banister slide’ whilst drunk = self - chosen

obvious danger ( volenti )

s.149(3) Road Traffic Act 1988 - a defendant who is a driver cannot raise volenti against a passenger

Justification defences

• Self - defence (reasonable/proportionate force)

• Defence of others (ditto) - to protect someone else

• Defence of property (own or others) (ditto)

• Statutory Authority - like a factory can emit certain amounts of pollutants because statute allows them to. 

• Statutory defences

• eg s.2(2) Hotel Proprietors Act 1956 as long as the notice is exhibited s.2(3) re

property loss or damage -vehicle is left at owners risk

• Necessity (strict) (but cannot be negligent: Rigby v CC of Northants

(1985 - fire gas tanks in a shop did so negligently))

• Judicial or ministerial acts - judge, minister.

• Act of God ( Cushing v Peter Walker and Son (1941) re a gale)

Illegality:

1) Purpose: What’s the purpose of the (criminal) law breached by the

Claimant ie what policy does the broken rule serve?

- preventing insider dealing not enhanced if no ‘bets’ were placed

2) Counter - policies: Any other policies affected by allowing or denying

the claim?

- preventing unjust enrichment / fairness

3) Proportionality: Is denial of Claimant’s tort claim a fair, non - overkill

response here?

- denying recovery = disproportionate penalty

Illegality cases

Grondona v Stoffel & Co (2020) - MOrtgage fraud c would not profit from fraud so successful
Lewis - Ranwell (2024) - PEDO MAN
McCracken v Smith - joy rider
Not all criminal acts are illegality
Joyce v o’brien - stolen ladder - theft on going
Delaney v pickett - cannabis in car - not to do with driving

CN

a quantum modifier
reduce damages to

such an extent as court thinks ‘just and equitable having regard to C’s

share in responsibility for the damage ’
Only available in Negligence or breach of statutory duty: Pritchard v Co - Op

Society (2011) CA
Lever 1: Blameworthiness

• how far below standards: D’s failure to take care of others’ interests v C’s

own safety

• Take into account all circumstances, objective test, but C’s personal

characteristics matter more (child, expert, within C’s control etc?)

• Lever 2: Causative potency (how much did C’s conduct make this

damage happen)

• Don’t over-theorise causation; keep it practical / common sense

• Relative / comparison between D and C’s causal input to damage: Froom

v Butcher (1975) cf. Stanton v Collinson (2010)
JAMES V WHITE LION HOTEL - ola low sash no restrictors - accepted risk.

HOW TO USE

Thesis: On these facts, the right tool is [volenti/illegality/CN]

• Authority: In [case] the court held [principle/rule] because

[salient facts]

• eg Geary: “Obvious, self-chosen recreational risk → volenti can defeat the

claim.”

• eg White Lion: Knowledge ≠ acceptance; use CN with the two levers

(blame/causal potency)

• Apply/Distinguish: Our facts (match/differ) on [X], so the court

should [defeat/allow/reduce etc]