1
Q
Jackson v Murray
A
- driver at fault but damages reduced to take account of girls failure to take account of road safety
- 50% fixed contributory negligence
2
Q
Sayers
A
- toilet incident
- contributory negligence 25%
- recklessness in trying to escape not so extreme to remove council’s negligence
3
Q
Requirements of contributory negligence?
A
- did pursuer take reasonable care for his/her own safety?
2. did failure to do so constitute a “substantial cause”?
4
Q
Hill v Chivers
A
- damages reduced by 1/3 for not weaing seatbelt as this would have reduced injuries
5
Q
Pace v Cully
A
- exceptionally no contributory negligence for failing to wear seatbelt
- police had advised local taxi drivers not to wear belt
6
Q
Currie v Clamp Exec.
A
- getting into car with knowledge of drunk driver recognised as contributory negligence
7
Q
Galbraith’s Curator v Stewart
A
- G and 8 year old playing on pipes in night
- no contributory negligence
- 8 year old could not weigh up harm
8
Q
Anderson v Imrie
A
- farm gate incident
- 25% contributory negligence
- 8 year old had sufficient understanding to realise danger
9
Q
Jackson v Murray
A
- 13 year old should be aware of dangers of crossing road
- original 90% contributory negligence reduced to 70% then 50%
- SC couldn’t find satisfactory explanation in reasoning
10
Q
Reeves v Commissioner of Police of MET
A
- police sued for negligence - death in police custody
- contributory negligence includes intentional acts
- deliberate act of death = damages reduced
11
Q
Pitt v Hunt
A
- percentage reduction attributable to pursuers contributory negligence
- appropriate apportionment according to relative fault of defenders
12
Q
Fitzgerald v Lane
A
- pedestrian struck twice (relative fault 50/50)
- joint and several liability
- plaintiff could opt to pursue one of defenders for whole amount
13
Q
What is volenti fit iniura?
A
- defence that pursuer exprelly or impliedly consented to risk of injury
14
Q
Titchener v British Railways
A
- no volenti defence
- 15 year old admitted she knew dangers of crossing railway track
15
Q
Morris v Murray
A
- pilot crashed, passenger injured: drink involved
- defence of volenti stood
- M could appreciate risk
- in company whilst drinking
16
Q
Reeves v Commissioner
A
- police attempted volenti defence
- illogical, contrary to public policy to prevent them from duty
- police had specific duty to look after known suicide risk
17
Q
Corr v IBC
A
- employers negligence brought him to suicidal state, no scope of volenti defence
- employer tried to invoke volenti defence which was thrown out
18
Q
What is illegality?
A
- pursuer and defender engaged together in criminal or dishonourable enterprise
- pursuer alone engaging in criminal or dishonourable enterprise
19
Q
Joyce v O’Brien
A
- illegality upheld (van robbery)
- forseeable unsual/increased risks of harm
- injury caused by criminal act
20
Q
McLaughlin v Morrison
A
- defenders actions, not pursuers had most causal impact
- illegality defence rejected
- defender drove at pursuer allegedly involved in earlier pub attack (unrelated incidents)
21
Q
Revill v Newberry
A
- allotment vandalism not inextricably bound with being shot at
- R successfully sued for damages (2/3 contributory negligence)
22
Q
Gray v Thames Trains Ltd
A
- weighing up whether it is the defenders wrongdoing or pursuers illegal act which has the greater causal impact
- TT were liable to compensate after injury but before manslaughter
23
Q
When does prescription period run?
A
Period runs from date damage occured. Suggested changes: runs only when knowledge of loss, injury, damage caused by certain person
24
Q
Can limitation period be extended?
A
Yes, in relation to personal injury, death, defamation:
- time elapsed
- consequent loss of evidence
- difficulties with investigation
25
Agnew v Scott Lithgow
- vibration white finger
| - inexcusable delay in proceedings notwithstanding late diagnosis
26
Young v Borders Health Board
- no excuse outwith timebar
| - knew of misdiagnosis immediately
27
Elliot v J and C Finney
- hospitalisation period still counted
| - court suggested that enquiries could be made on behalf
Delict
flashcards
Decks in class (8)
# Cards
