Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
8 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Most common: Contributory Negligence s. 1(1) Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 |
Partial defence - reduces damages Claimant had contributed, negligently, to his own injuries. |
|
|
Froom v Butcher - seatbelt |
Claimant failed to put on seatbelt - damages were reduced by 15% If seatbelt would have prevented ALL damage, damages would reduce by 25% |
|
|
Revill v Newberry |
Defendant kept a shotgun on premises. C had contributed by being a trespasser on D’s land and exposed himself to the shotgun |
|
|
Children cases: Children today are smarter and can appreciate risks better. |
Back then: Yachuk v Oliver Blais Co - 9 year old playing with petrol not CN - could not foresee risk Gough v Thorne - 13 year old crossing road without looking with not CN |
|
|
Children today can better appreciate risks - thus can be Contributory negligent |
Evans v Garage - 13 year old playing with petrol was contributorily negligent - smarter than children were 40 years ago. Jackson v Murray (2015) - 13 yo failed to notice D’s car while crossing - damages reduced by 50% |
|
|
Volenti non fit injuria |
Voluntary to your own injuries. Claimant must know of the risks and had true freedom of choice in accepting those risks. |
|
|
Exercise of choice: |
ICI v Shatwell - C had failed to put on safety goggles. Injured his eye, damages reduced. Smith v Baker - C informed D about dangers of work. D had done nothing. C continuing work is not volenti - no free choice (economic duress) |
|
|
s.149 Road Traffic Act |
Pitts v Hunt - passenger can never be said to consent to the Defendant’s reckless driving |
