defences

Question 1

Pritchard v Cooperative Group Ltd

Answer 1

Facts: Claimant partly at fault for accident — damages reduced.
Principle: Contributory negligence under the 1945 Act applies to all torts except trespass.

Question 2

Jones v Livox Quarries Ltd (1952)

Answer 2

Facts: Worker rode on tow bar and was injured in collision — contributory negligence.
Principle: C at fault if he ought reasonably to foresee risk of injury.

Question 3

Froom v Butcher (1976)

Answer 3

Facts: Failure to wear seatbelt worsened injuries — contributory negligence.
Principle: Fault must contribute to damage; reduction depends on causal impact.

Question 4

O’Connell v Jackson (1972)

Answer 4

Facts: Passenger injured due to dangerous seating choice — contributory negligence.
Principle: C at fault if injury results from risk C voluntarily created.

Question 5

Dann v Hamilton (1939)

Answer 5

Facts: Passenger accepted lift from drunk driver — no volenti.
Principle: Knowledge of increased risk not enough unless risk is extreme.

Question 6

Badger v Ministry of Defence (2005)

Answer 6

Facts: Asbestos exposure with shared fault — reduced damages.
Principle: Apportionment may be difficult but still required.

Question 7

Jones v Boyce (1816)

Answer 7

Facts: Passenger jumped from coach fearing crash — no contributory negligence.
Principle: Allowance for reasonable response in emergency.

Question 8

Sayers v Harlow UDC (1958)

Answer 8

Facts: Claimant injured escaping locked toilet — contributory negligence.
Principle: Emergency excuses unless conduct obviously unreasonable.

Question 9

Gough v Thorne (1966)

Answer 9

Facts: Child injured crossing road — no contributory negligence.
Principle: Standard is that of reasonable child of same age.

Question 10

Yachuk v Oliver Blais (1949)

Answer 10

Facts: Child injured after being sold petrol — no contributory negligence.
Principle: Courts are lenient; assess by reasonable child standard.

Question 11

Caswell v Powell Duffryn Collieries Ltd (1940)

Answer 11

Facts: Miner injured due to momentary inattention — no contributory negligence.
Principle: Allowance for repetitive and boring work.

Question 12

Harrison v British Rail Board (1981)

Answer 12

Facts: Rescuer injured responding to emergency — no contributory negligence.
Principle: No fault unless rescuer created the danger.

Question 13

Morris v Murray (1990)

Answer 13

Facts: Passenger flew with drunk pilot and died — volenti.
Principle: Volenti requires subjective knowledge of full extent of risk.

Question 14

Bowater v Rowley Regis Corporation (1944)

Answer 14

Facts: Worker obeyed dangerous order and was injured — no volenti.
Principle: Consent must be truly voluntary, without compulsion.

Question 15

Smith v Baker (1891)

Answer 15

Facts: Worker injured by falling stones at work — no volenti.
Principle: Hard to infer voluntary acceptance of risk in employment.

Question 16

ICI Ltd v Shatwell (1965)

Answer 16

Facts: Experienced employees ignored safety rules — volenti.
Principle: Rare case where employees knowingly accepted risk.

Question 17

Haynes v Harwood (1935)

Answer 17

Facts: Rescuer injured stopping runaway horses — no volenti.
Principle: Rescuers are not treated as consenting to risk.

Question 18

Cutler v United Dairies (1933)

Answer 18

Facts: Claimant injured interfering with cattle — volenti.
Principle: Busybody not protected as true rescuer.

Question 19

Nettleship v Weston (1971)

Answer 19

Facts: Learner driver injured instructor — no volenti.
Principle: Implied consent requires near inevitability of risk.

Question 20

Pitts v Hunt (1990)

Answer 20

Facts: Drunk motorcyclist passenger injured — no recovery.
Principle: Volenti barred by statute; claim failed on illegality.

Question 21

Johnstone v Bloomsbury AHA (1991)

Answer 21

Facts: Doctor injured after excessive hours — partial recovery.
Principle: UCTA prevents exclusion of liability for death or personal injury.

Question 22

Ashton v Turner (1981)

Answer 22

Facts: Criminal injured escaping robbery — claim barred.
Principle: Ex turpi causa denies recovery to criminals.

Question 23

Cummings v Grainger (1977)

Answer 23

Facts: Injury during criminal enterprise — claim barred.
Principle: Ex turpi applies where claim founded on illegality.

Question 24

Vellino v Greater Manchester Police (2001)

Answer 24

Facts: Suspect injured evading arrest — claim barred.
Principle: Injury flowed from claimant’s own illegal act.

Question 25

Clunis v Camden LBC (1998)

Answer 25

Facts: Patient killed stranger — claim barred. Principle: No civil claim founded on serious criminal conduct.

Question 26

Gray v Thames Trains Ltd (2009)

Answer 26

Facts: PTSD sufferer killed pedestrian — claim barred. Principle: No recovery for consequences of criminal conviction.

Question 27

Delaney v Pickett (2011)

Answer 27

Facts: Passenger injured in unrelated illegality — claim allowed. Principle: Illegality must be integral to the claim.

Question 28

Henderson v Dorset Healthcare NHS Trust (2020)

Answer 28

Facts: Patient killed mother during psychosis — claim barred. Principle: Gray approved; public policy bars recovery.

Question 29

Lewis-Ranwell v G4S Health Services UK Ltd (2024)

Answer 29

Facts: Claimant found not guilty by reason of insanity — claim allowed. Principle: Illegality defence depends on culpability and proportionality.