Class notes
Defences to Negligence
- Course
- Institution
Lecture notes on the various defences to negligence
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
athenag
Content preview
Tort LectureWeek 5
DEFENCES
➔ Even if a claimant establishes all the elements of their claim, their action may still be defined partially or in full
if the defendant is able to rely upon a defence
➔ The defences that apply to the law of negligence include:
◆ volenti non fit injuria
● ‘No wrong is done to one who consents’
● complete defence
◆ illegality (ex turpi causa)
● complete defence
◆ Contributory Negligence
● claimant contributed to harm suffered
VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA: KEY ELEMENTS
➔ Smith v Baker [1891] - ‘one who has invited or assented to an act being done towards him cannot, when he
suffers it, complain of it as a wrong’
➔ Explicit consent or tacit acceptance of the harm or risk of harm
➔ Must show (subjectively):
1. Knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk of harm
2. Voluntary acceptance of it
TWO ELEMENTS OF VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA
➔ Firstly need to establish whether claimant had knowledge of the potential risk of the injury
◆ Dann v Hamilton [1939]
● claimant and defendant had been drinking together
● defendant drove them both home
● defendant crashed
● defendant was killed, claimant seriously injured
● claimant was aware of the danger, this did not go so far as to demonstrate an acceptance
or consent to the risk of being injured
● knowing that you are engaging in a risky activity is not sufficient in and of itself
◆ Nettleship v Weston [1971]
● the court noted the knowledge of the risk of injury isn’t enough nor is there willingness to
take the risk of injury
● nothing short of an agreement to waive the claim of negligence will suffice
➔ Also need to establish acceptance of that risk
◆ Morris v Murphy [1991]
● the claimant and defendant had been getting drunk together
● they decided that they would go fly an aeroplane
● during the flight, the defendant crashed the plane and the claimant was seriously injured
● the court accepted that, not only was the claimant aware of the risks involved, they had
also voluntarily assumed the risk of injury
, ● wasn’t sufficient in this case to argue that he was so drunk as not to appreciate the extent
or the nature of the risk
● claimant’s actions taken to enter the plane were sufficient to demonstrate an acceptance of
the risk of injury, thereby consenting to it
◆ Condon v Basi [1985]
● footballer injured as a result of a reckless tackle
● court considered how the role of consent was relevant to sportspersons
● court recognised that a footballer can consent to being tackled but not to dangerous
tackling which went beyond the rules of the game
● when it comes to sport, the court accepts that the claimant will voluntarily accept some risk
of injury provided that it is within the rules of the sport
ILLEGALITY
➔ Prohibits recovery for
◆ (a) recovery for consequences of criminal sanction
◆ (b) for losses suffered through engagement in criminal activity
➔ The defence of illegality (also known as ex turpi causa non oritur actio - ‘an action cannot be founded on a
case cause’)
➔ Complete defence
➔ Gray v Thames Trains [2009]
◆ claimant suffered PTSD after being involved in a train crash
◆ they later went on to kill a pedestrian
◆ claimed loss of earnings during their detention
◆ claim was rejected on the grounds that to award damages would set the civil law against the criminal
law
KEY ELEMENTS OF ILLEGALITY
➔ 1. There must be a strong link between the criminal conduct of the claimant and the loss suffered
◆ Vellino v Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police [2001]
● a man jumped from a second story window trying to escape arrest
● went on to sue police for his injuries, claiming that they had been negligent in their pursuit
of him
◆ Delaney v Pickett [2011]
● claimant was injured when the defendant crashed the car that they were both in
● when stopped, the claimant was found to have a large amount of cannabis with him
● at first instance, it was held that recovery was to be barred on the basis of illegality because
of the fact that the claimant had cannabis on him
● no claim
● CoA overruled this finding, stating that the injury did not stem from the illegal act, it was
ancillary to it. Claimant was not injured through their illegal act
➔ 2. The criminal conduct must be serious
◆ ‘Public Conscience’ Test, Pitts v Hunt [1991]
● D and C had been drinking together
● both set off on D’s motorcycle w C riding pillion
● all 3 members of the CoA were clear that the illegality defence should apply
● Lord Justice Dylan was satisfied that the injury was caused directly by the illegal act
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through EFT, credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller athenag. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R70,57. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
56326 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy summaries for 14 years now