Defences:
Contributory Negligence:
1. The 1945 Act:
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 –
s.1(1) – Where any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own
fault and partly of the fault of any other person or persons, a claim in respect
of that damage shall not be defeated by reason of the fault of the person
suffering the damage, but the damages recoverable in respect thereof shall be
reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to
the claimant’s share in the responsibility for the damage.
s.4 – “damage” includes loss of life and personal injury.
“fault” means negligence, breach of statutory duty or other act or
omission which gives rise to a liability in tort or would, apart from this
Act, give rise to the defence of contributory negligence.
Jones v Livox Quarries –
C was a quarry worker on his way to the quarry canteen down the base of the
quarry. Both workers and slow-moving vehicles were using this route. While
one of these vehicles had stopped to change a gear, C jumped on the back. D,
C’s employer, had instructed the workers not to do this. A second vehicle
crashed into the back of the vehicle which C was riding, and C was injured.
Although contributory negligence does not depend on a duty of care,
it does depend on foreseeability – requires the foreseeability of
harm to oneself.
“A person is guilty of contributory negligence if he ought reasonably
to have foreseen that, if he did not act as a reasonable, prudent, man,
he might be hurt himself; and in his reckonings he must take into
account the possibility of others being careless.”
Must work out whether the claimant’s conduct was an active cause of the injury or
was merely part of the background circumstances.
Denning LJ in Jones v Livox –
Drew a distinction between the claimant being crushed and, while
being on the back of the vehicle, if he had been hit in the eye by a
shot from a negligent sportsman.
In the latter case, the claimant’s negligence would in no way be a
cause of his injury – it would only be part of the history.
In the former, “the man’s negligence… was so much mixed
up with his injury that it cannot be dismissed as mere
history.”
What if he had been thrown off rather than crushed?
This would be too fine a distinction – purely fortuitous
circumstance.
2. Apportionment:
Froom v Butcher –
The claimant and his family were injured when he was in a car accident
caused by the careless driving of the defendant. His injuries were exacerbated
by the fact that he had deliberately chosen not to wear a seat belt.
In these seat belt cases, the injured plaintiff is in no way to blame for
the accident itself.
BUT – the question is not what was the cause of the accident, but
rather what was the cause of the damage.
In seat belt cases, the cause of the accident is one thing, the
cause of the damage is another.
Contributory Negligence:
1. The 1945 Act:
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 –
s.1(1) – Where any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own
fault and partly of the fault of any other person or persons, a claim in respect
of that damage shall not be defeated by reason of the fault of the person
suffering the damage, but the damages recoverable in respect thereof shall be
reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to
the claimant’s share in the responsibility for the damage.
s.4 – “damage” includes loss of life and personal injury.
“fault” means negligence, breach of statutory duty or other act or
omission which gives rise to a liability in tort or would, apart from this
Act, give rise to the defence of contributory negligence.
Jones v Livox Quarries –
C was a quarry worker on his way to the quarry canteen down the base of the
quarry. Both workers and slow-moving vehicles were using this route. While
one of these vehicles had stopped to change a gear, C jumped on the back. D,
C’s employer, had instructed the workers not to do this. A second vehicle
crashed into the back of the vehicle which C was riding, and C was injured.
Although contributory negligence does not depend on a duty of care,
it does depend on foreseeability – requires the foreseeability of
harm to oneself.
“A person is guilty of contributory negligence if he ought reasonably
to have foreseen that, if he did not act as a reasonable, prudent, man,
he might be hurt himself; and in his reckonings he must take into
account the possibility of others being careless.”
Must work out whether the claimant’s conduct was an active cause of the injury or
was merely part of the background circumstances.
Denning LJ in Jones v Livox –
Drew a distinction between the claimant being crushed and, while
being on the back of the vehicle, if he had been hit in the eye by a
shot from a negligent sportsman.
In the latter case, the claimant’s negligence would in no way be a
cause of his injury – it would only be part of the history.
In the former, “the man’s negligence… was so much mixed
up with his injury that it cannot be dismissed as mere
history.”
What if he had been thrown off rather than crushed?
This would be too fine a distinction – purely fortuitous
circumstance.
2. Apportionment:
Froom v Butcher –
The claimant and his family were injured when he was in a car accident
caused by the careless driving of the defendant. His injuries were exacerbated
by the fact that he had deliberately chosen not to wear a seat belt.
In these seat belt cases, the injured plaintiff is in no way to blame for
the accident itself.
BUT – the question is not what was the cause of the accident, but
rather what was the cause of the damage.
In seat belt cases, the cause of the accident is one thing, the
cause of the damage is another.
