Contributory Negligence PDF

Preview

Summary

An essay on contributory negligence...

Description

  



Definition Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 Defendant must prove: o Claimant’s conduct fell below reasonable standard – 1 case law o Causation – 1 case law Apportionment

Task: 1. Write 1 page information on contributory negligence

-

-

-

Three defences : volenti non fit injuria – claimant voluntarily agrees to undertake the legal risk of harm at his own expense Definition : claimant’s fault has contributed to their damage and the damages awarded are reduced in proportion to their fault The 1945 act will only apply when a person has suffered damage (including loss of life and personal injury) Only apply when it’s caused partly fault of the defendant and partly the claimant’s fault Fault of defendant – negligence, breach of statutory duty or other act or omission which gives rise to liability in tort Fault of claimant – act or omission which would apart from act, give rise to the defence of contributory negligence. Act does not apply in negligence, nuisance and actions under rule in RYLANDS v FLETCHER Elements of contributory negligence: o Defendant must prove claimant failed to take reasonable care of their own safety and that this failure was a cause of their damage o Eg: motorcyclists don’t owe doc to wear a crash helmet but if they failed to do that, they are guilty of contributory negligence if they suffer head injuries o Eg: person who smokes should foresee that they would likely develop lung cancer. In a situation where they are exposed to materials that cause cancer like asbestos and smoke, their damages will be reduced for contributory negligence. Badger v Ministry of Defence o Depends on foreseeability o Contributory negligence requires the foreseeability of harm to oneself. Jones v Livox Quarries. For court to decide if the claimant was contributory negligence: o Factors which similar to which would render the defendant negligent. o Claimant put themselves in a position which is not dangerous in itself o Children cannot be helf to be guilty of contributory negligence gough v thorne & yachuk v oliver blais o Defendant’s negligence has placed the claimant in a dilemma ( like when claimant did something which carries a risk but it’s to avoid a reasonably greater danger) – won’t be contributory negligence Causation – claimant’s fault must be a legal and factual case of the harm suffered

-

-

The first test is “but for” must be passed for factual causation 0 would the claimant suffered the loss? If yes, the defendant is not liable. If no, the defendant is liable. Barnett v chelsea & Kensington hospital It’s a problem when there’s multiple possible causes such as in baker v Willoughby and fitzgerald v lane...