Flashcards
Contributory Negligence
Cards in this deck (17)
- 1What impact does contributory Negligence have on the remedies avaliable?Both the defendant and claimant are liably for a determined share of the blame and the damages.
- 2What is the authority for Contributory Negligence?S1(1) Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
- 3What are the requirements for Contributory Negligence?Fault falls upon both parties (S1 Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945)
S4 defines the damage and fault.
The defenant must prove the claiamant failed to take reasonable care for their own safety.
AND
This failure caused their damage. - 4Jones v Livox [1952]The claimant does not need to owe a duty of care
- 5Davies v Swan Motor Co [1949] (how has the claimant contributed)All parties involved in the accident were held liable for causing the crash.
The claimant contributed to his damages because he failed to take care for his own safety. - 6Owens v Brimmell [1977] (how has the claimant contributed)C went on a pub crawl, and got in D's car knowing he was drunk. C received injuries in the accident.
The claimant contributed because the claimant was capable of foreseeing the damage. - 7Froom v Butcher [1976] (how has the claimant contributed)C was in an accident and didn't wear a seatbelt. If you were thrown through the window because of no seatbelt, your damages would reduce by 25%, 15% if the damages would be reduced if the seatbelt would not have reduced all the injuries received, and 10% if the seatbelt would have failed anyway.
The claimant contributed because he failed to take precautions. - 8Froom v Butcher [1976] (objective test for the standard of the claimant)Reasonable for everyone to wear seatbelt apart from those who are excepted from the law to wear a seatbelt for medical reasons etc.
- 9Swinton v Annabel's Ltd [2005] (objective test for the standard of the claimant)There is no legal requirement to wear helmet
she walked her dog through the park, experience cyclist knocked off his bike by a dog, there was no requirement to make someone wear a helmet in a park, it would take health and safety too far. - 10Smith v Finch [2009] (objective test for the standard of the claimant)The damages would have been reduced for him not wearing helmet whilst riding on road, but because he was over the 12mph limit for the helmet, it would have made no difference and would have received the injuries anyway. If he hit the floor under 12mph, his damages would have been reduced.
- 11Reynolds v Strutt Parker [2011] (objective test for the standard of the claimant)He had damages reduced for not wearing helmet, because he knew the situation he was going into, and that it was competitive.
Damages reduced by 1/3 - 12Gough v Thorne [1966] (exceptions to the objective tests)13-year-old girl waved on by the truck driver to cross, normal person would have stopped when past to lorry to see if anything else was coming, but she did not.
Due to her age, she was not expected to act like this, damages not reduced. - 13Jones v Boyce [1816] (exceptions to the objective tests)Couplin broke off horse and carriage, and the claimants jumped off. Held it was reasonable to act like that in an emergency.
- 14Other exceptions to the objective testEmployees:
Breach of statutory duty
Statutory Regulations
(St George v Home Office [2008] if needed) - 15Anderson v Newham College of FE [2002]Maximum of 90% contributory to the claimant, cannot be 100% to blame.
- 16What does Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 say?If the claimant was not at fault then will recover in full BUT
D1 can seek a contribution from D2, etc - 17Fitzgerald v Lane [1988]The defendant's responsibility will be split between the number of defendants so that the claimant doesn’t get more than what he should.
Information
- Description
- Law of Tort (Negligence Defences) Flashcards on Contributory Negligence, created by James Dolton on 31/01/2018.
- Created by
- James Dolton
- Views
- 0
- Rating