Tort Law - Chapter 10 - Defences to negligence

Defenses to Negligence

Key Defenses Discussed

This chapter explores three major defenses to negligence: voluntary assumption of risk (volenti non fit injuria), contributory negligence, and illegality. These defenses can mitigate or eliminate liabilities in cases where negligence is proven but specific circumstances apply that weaken the claimant's case.

1. Voluntary Assumption of Risk (Volenti Non Fit Injuria)

  • Definition: The defense of voluntary assumption of risk is founded on the principle that a person who consents to a risky activity cannot later sue for injuries resulting from it. The Latin phrase 'volenti non fit injuria' translates to 'to a willing person, no injury is done'.

  • Application: This defense arises chiefly in situations where:

    1. The claimant expressly consented to the specific harm caused by the defendant, or

    2. The claimant accepted the risks inherent to the activity (e.g., participating in contact sports).

  • Important Case: In Morris v Murray, the claimant voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by participating in a dangerous activity (flying with an intoxicated pilot). The court held that the claimant was aware of the risk and hence could not claim damages for injuries sustained.

  • Distinction: It's crucial to differentiate between consent to risk and mere awareness of it. Knowing about a risk does not imply consent to waive the right to claim damages in case of injury.

2. Contributory Negligence

  • Definition: Contributory negligence is a partial defense that can reduce the amount of damages a claimant recovers based on their own negligence that contributed to the injury. It does not absolve the defendant of liability but reduces the damages awarded.

  • Legal Framework: According to the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, damages can be reduced according to the claimant's share of the responsibility for the damage.

  • Questions to Consider:

    1. Did the claimant fail to exercise reasonable care for their own safety?

    2. Did this failure contribute to the damage?

    3. How should the damages be reduced?

  • Key Cases:

    • In Jones v Livox Quarries Ltd, a claimant was found to be contributory negligent for riding on the back of a vehicle contrary to safety regulations.

    • In Jackson v Murray, a claimant’s damages were reduced as they were found 50% to blame for their injuries after running into the road carelessly.

3. Illegality (Ex Turpi Causa)

  • Definition: The rule of illegality prevents a claimant from recovering damages if they are injured while engaging in illegal activities. It operates on the principle that one should not benefit from a wrongful act.

  • Case Law Summary:

    • Gray v Thames Trains Ltd: The claimant developed PTSD after surviving a train crash due to the defendant's negligence but later engaged in a criminal act (manslaughter) driven by that PTSD, which led to the denial of damages.

    • Delaney v Pickett: The Court of Appeal ruled that compensation could be awarded where the act of negligence (negligent driving) was separate from the illegal activity (transporting drugs).

  • Considerations: The courts weigh public policy when deciding on illegality claims, evaluating if enforcing the claim would conflict with legal integrity or public expectations.

Conclusion

Each defense functions within its context: 'volenti' extinguishes liability by demonstrating consent to risk, contributory negligence adjusts damage amounts based on shared responsibility, and illegality invalidates claims tied to wrongful conduct. Together, they shape the landscape of tort law, balancing accountability and fair recovery.