3: Past exam Questions and Defences

Past Exam Questions and Defences

Facts: Vadim, an employee of 'Up and Away Co', becomes intoxicated at a wedding. He offers Wilma a flight but crashes due to impaired judgment, resulting in Wilma's serious injury.
Negligence Analysis:
- Actionable Damage: Wilma sustained serious injuries.
- Duty of Care: Vadim had a duty to operate the aircraft safely.
- Breach of Duty: Warped judgment due to intoxication led to a crash.
- Causation: Wilma's injuries were directly caused by Vadim's negligence.
Defences: After establishing negligence, evaluate if Vadim can raise any defences.

Volenti Non Fit Injuria:
- Requirements: Knowledge of risk and voluntary assumption of risk.
- Knowledge of Risk: Wilma must have been aware of the risks involved in flying with an intoxicated pilot.
- Voluntary Assumption: Wilma's decision appears to be voluntary.
Legal Context: Similar to the case of Morris v Murray, where assumption of risk was evaluated.

Facts: Kieran, distracted by his phone while driving, swerves and hits Lulu and Mabel, who were involved in a cannabis transaction. Both sustain serious injuries.
Negligence Analysis:
- Actionable Damage: Both victims suffered serious injuries.
- Duty of Care: Kieran owed a duty to drive safely and avoid pedestrians.
- Breach of Duty: His distracted driving constituted a breach.
- Causation: Direct causation between driving negligence and injuries.
Defences Consideration:
- Discuss if Kieran can raise any defences after establishing claims for negligence.

Criteria for application:
- Public policy considerations often guide judiciary discretion.
- Causation based on illegal acts must review whether the illegal activity is essential to the claim or merely incidental.
Legal Precedents:
- Patel v Mirza and Henderson v Dorset Healthcare discuss principles applicable to tort claims.
Key Considerations:
- Determine whether claimant’s injury was due to illegal activity (if so, recovery may be barred).
- Analyze whether the illegal behavior was directly related to the harm caused or incidental.
- Reference Delaney v Pickett where illegality was deemed incidental to the harm inflicted.

Facts: After consuming vodka, Kurt crashes the car while driving Jenny to the hospital, resulting in Jenny being thrown from the vehicle and sustaining permanent disability.
Negligence Analysis:
- Actionable Damage: Jenny has suffered significant injuries.
- Duty of Care: Kurt owed Jenny a duty to drive safely.
- Breach of Duty: Kurt's impaired condition led to the crash.
- Causation: Direct correlation between the accident and Jenny's injuries.
Defences Analysis:
- Section 149 RTA 1988: Prohibits volenti from being pleaded in these circumstances.
- Illegality defence is less likely to apply.

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 outlines assessment for contributory negligence:
- Negligence Assessment: Objective standard on Jenny's behavior.
- Causation Check: Determine if her actions contributed to the damages suffered (e.g., not wearing a seatbelt).
- Damage Reduction: Discretionary reduction based on the claimant's share of fault.

1. Negligent Behavior: Jenny’s choice not to wear a seatbelt assessed against reasonable care standards (reference Campbell v Advantage Insurance).
1. Causation Impact: Application of the 'but for' test. (Reference Stanton v Collinson).
1. Damage Reduction Assessment:
- Reference Froom v Butcher where different reduction percentages are stated (15% & 25%).
- Compare with Morris v Murray (50%) and Smith v CC Notts Police (33%) regarding entering a vehicle with a drunk driver.