Defences

key point of Jackson v Murray?

in assessing the apportionment of damages for contributory negligence, both the relative blameworthiness of C and D and the causative potencies of what they have done are relevant

facts of Jackson v Murray?

• C, a 13-year-old girl, stepped out from a minibus onto the road

• D was driving his car too fast and crashed into her

• Held: D’s conduct played at least an equal role to that of C in causing the damage and was at least equally blameworthy

facts of Jones v Livox Quarries?

• C worked in D’s quarry

• C hitched a ride by standing on the towbar of a traxcavator in breach of company rules

• the driver was unaware that C had jumped on the back

• a dumper truck, driven recklessly by another employee, crashed into the back of the traxcavator, and C’s legs had to be amputated

what was held in Jones v Livox Quarries?

C was contributorily negligent

key points of Froom v Butcher?

• in determining whether there is contributory negligence, the question is not whether the accident, but rather the damage, is in part caused by C’s negligence

• in determining the extent of reduction of damages, the relative blameworthiness of the parties is not considered; it depends on the causative potency of each party’s negligence

facts of Froom v Butcher?

• C suffered head + chest injuries and a broken finger in a car accident caused by D’s negligent driving

• C was not wearing a seatbelt because he did not like them as he had seen accidents where the driver would have been trapped in the vehicle had he been wearing a seatbelt

• C would not have suffered the head + chest had he been wearing a seatbelt

what was held in Froom v Butcher?

since C’s injuries, except for the broken finger, had been caused by his failure to wear the seatbelt, he was contributorily negligent

key point of Reeves v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police?

a deliberate act that D was under a duty to prevent cannot amount to a break in the chain of causation or a voluntary assumption of risk

• But it CAN amount to contributory negligence

facts of Reeves v Metropolitan Police Commissioner?

• the deceased was held in a police cell in custody of D’s officers, who had been alerted to the risk that he might commit suicide

• however, the doctor who examined him stated that he showed no evidence of any psychiatric disorder or clinical depression

• the officers left the flap of the cell door open, which the deceased used to aid his suicide

key point of St George v Home Office?

C’s act must have sufficient proximity in time, place and circumstances of D’s negligence to be regarded as a potent cause of injury and thereby amount to contributory negligence

facts of St George v Home Office?

• C suffered from withdrawal seizures as a result of drug abuse from his late teens

• while C was imprisoned, he fell from his top bunk as a result of a seizure and suffered brain damage

• C had informed the prison authorities of his withdrawal seizures

• Home Office (D) argued that C was contributorily negligent as it was his fault he became addicted to drugs

what was held in St George v Home Office?

C’s becoming addicted to drugs was too remote in time, place and circumstance to be properly regarded as a potent cause of his injury

key point of Co-operative Group (CWS) Ltd v Pritchard?

contributory negligence is not available as a defence to the torts of assault + battery

facts of Co-operative Group (CWS) v Pritchard?

• C was unhappy with her manager, and hurled abuses at him

• when C refused to leave, the manager seized her by her arms and C bit the manager to escape

• C sued D under the torts of assault + battery

• D argued that C was contributorily negligent due to her provocation towards the manager

key point of Blackmore v Department for communities and Local Government?

“responsibility” under s.1 LR(CNA)A 1945 is not limited to considerations of the causative potency of C’s conduct but had to take into account his relative blameworthiness

> this is so regardless of whether C’s fault falls within the scope of the very act which D has been expected to guard against

facts of Blackmore v Department for communities and Local Government?

• the deceased died of lung cancer having smoked his whole adult life

• he had been employed for 20 years by D’s predecessors in a dockyard where he had come into significant contact with asbestos

• Held: D was contributorily negligent

where a contract term purports to exclude or restrict liability for negligence, a person’s agreement to or awareness of it is ______________________________________________

NOT to be taken as indicating his voluntary acceptance of nay risk (s.2(3) UCTA)

where a term of a consumer contract purports to exclude or restrict a trader’s liability for negligence, a person is ________________________________

NOT to be taken to have voluntarily accepted any risk merely because he agreed to or knew about the term (s.65(2) CRA 2015)

key point of ICI v Shatwell?

where there is full knowledge of the risks and a deliberate act causing the injury, voluntary assumption of risk rather than contributory negligence is applicable

facts of ICI v Shatwell?

• C and his co-worker cooperated in testing explosives without taking shelter as required

• C was injured

• Held: the employer was not contributorily negligent - the volenti defence applied

key point of Nettleship v Weston?

voluntary assumption of risk is not a defence if there was a mere knowledge of the risk but no express or implied agreement to waive any claim for injury

facts of Nettleship v Weston?

• C was giving a friend’s wife, D, lessons in her husband’s car

• on one lesson C was executing a simple manoeuvre at slow speed when she panicked, resulting in the car crashing into a lamppost and injuring C

• the volenti defence was not applicable

key point of Morris v Murray?

intoxication does not render C incapable of appreciating risk and consenting to it

facts of Morris v Murray?

• C and a friend had been drinking all afternoon

• they decided to go an a flight in C’s friend’s plane

• they crashed, killing the pilot friend and injuring C

• Held: the volenti defence applies - C fully accepted the risk

key point of Simms v Leigh Rugby Football Club?

participation in sport may entail the willing acceptance of risk under s.2(5) Occupier’s Liability Act 1957

facts of Simms v Leigh Rugby Football Club?

• during a rugby football game, C was tackled into a concrete wall, breaking his leg

• it was not clear whether C’s leg came into contact with the concrete wall

• Held: on balance of probs C’s injury was not caused by contact with the wall

  > since a broken leg in a tackle was one of the accepted risks in rugby football, D football club was not liable

key point of Gray v Thames Trains?

under the wider rule of illegality, C cannot recover damage in respect of a criminal law sanction caused by one’s own criminal act

facts of Gray v Thames Trains?

• C developed PTSD after a train crash and killed a man as a result of a psychotic episode caused by the PTSD

• C brought an action against Ds, the train operator and the company responsible for the rail infrastructure

• Held: C’s claims rejected - the illegality defence applied

what is the wider rule in Gray v Thames Trains?

you cannot recover compensation for loss which you have suffered in consequence of your own criminal act

what is the narrower rule in Gray v Thames Trains?

you cannot recover for damage which is the consequence of a sentence imposed on you for a criminal act

key point of Delaney v Pickett?

for the illegality rule to apply, it is not sufficient that the tort occurred in the course of illegal conduct; the illegality must be an immediate cause

facts of Delaney v Pickett?

• C and the driver of the car (D) were transporting cannabis

• D negligently lost control of the car and C was injured from the collision

• C sued D in negligence

• Held: the illegality defence did not apply - C’s injury had not been caused by his criminal activity but by D’s negligent conduct, thus there was no NEXUS between the illegality and the tort

key points of Joyce v O’Brien?

• the causation test for illegality was reformed with an added element of foreseeability

• the nature + seriousness of C’s illegal act should be take into account in deciding whether the illegality defence applies

facts of Joyce v O’Brien?

• C was injured when he fell from the back of a van which was being driven by D

• D was driving dangerously

• Held: C could not recover for the consequences of his own criminal conduct

key point of Patel v Mirza?

regarding illegality, the court must take into account policy factors

facts of Patel v Mirza?

• C paid D on agreement that D would bet the money with insider information

• the agreement could not be carried out because the insider information was not coming

• C claimed against D for the repayment of the money

what factors did the court in Patel v Mirza hold should be considered when assessing illegality?

(a) the underlying purpose of the prohibition which has been transgressed and whether that purpose will be enhanced by the denial of the claim

(b) any other relevant public policy on which the denial of the claim may have an impact

(c) whether denial of the claim would be a proportionate response to the illegality, bearing in mind that punishment is a matter for the criminal courts

facts of Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust?

• C suffered from schizophrenia which led to her killing her mother in a psychotic episode when she was released from the mental hospital (D)

• C was charged with manslaughter

• the NHS (D) had failed in treating C’s mental illness

• C sought to recover for loss of liberty and personal injury

key point of White v Blackmore?

the volenti defence is only applicable where the victim was aware of the full extent o the risk

facts of White v Blackmore?

• C’s husband died from injuries while watching old cars racing organised by D

• the wheel of a car got entangled in a safety rope close to where C’s husband stood, and he was catapulted into the air

• notices stated that it was a condition of admission that the organisers were absolved from all liabilities from accidents “howsoever caused”

• Held: the volenti defence did not apply since the deceased did not know the full risk caused by D’s failure to take proper safety precautions

key point of Ashdown v Williams?

an occupier is only required to provide reasonable, not actual, notice of any exclusion of liability for dangers to a visitor

facts of Ashdown v Williams?

• C was a licensee on D’s land when she was knocked down and injured by railway trucks which were being negligently shunted along a railway line

• Held: D had taken reasonable steps to bring the conditions contained in the notices to C’s attention