Chapter 28
Compensatory damages
28.5 Reduction (2): Contributory Negligence:
• Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, s 1
• Damages reduced ‘to such an extent as the court thinks just and equitable having
regard to the claimant’s share in the responsibility for the damage’
• ‘Share’ means no possibility of 100% contributory negligence
A. Defendant’s conduct:
1945 Act says that the defence can be pleaded where the damage suffered by the C
was ‘the result…partly of the fault of [some] other person’ where ‘fault’ is defined as
meaning ‘negligence, breach of statutory duty’ or some other form of conduct
which, before 1945, would have given rise to a defence of contributory negligence.
Contributory negligence will not be available as a defence to all torts.
In some instances, the C’s contributory negligence won’t reduce the damages
payable to the C.
B. Claimant’s conduct:
Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2000] -> Reeves ends up
committing suicide in custody. D= police officers-> should’ve known he was a suicide
risk; should’ve taken care of him. D argues that his action was a break in the chain of
causation. Would make a nonsense of the duty-> should make sure he doesn’t kill
himself.
Particularly unreasonable acts will nonetheless be treated as breaking chain of
causation
Whether a reasonable person in C’s position would’ve acted in the same way.
Doubt arises in the case where the V of a tort suffered from a mental illness that led
her to do something that contributed to the losses that she suffered as a result of
the tort.
Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008]
C. Assessment of reduction:
Two party cases-> the courts determine by how much the damages payable to B
should be reduced by assessing the comparative blameworthiness of A and B for the
losses suffered by B. percentage wise- could be 80% to 20%.
Three party cases-> Fitzgerald v Lane [1989]
D. Self-harm:
Where the V of a tort has deliberately harmed herself and the person who
committed that tort is being sued for the loss resulting from that act of self-harm->
this has troubled the courts.
Courts consider the case where the V was mentally ill when she harmed herself.
Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008] -> employee injured in workplace accident caused by
his employer’s negligence developed post-traumatic stress disorder with the result
that he eventually killed himself. Law Lords were divided over whether the damages
payable to the employee’s dependants in respect of his death should be reduced on
the ground of contributory negligence.
Compensatory damages
28.5 Reduction (2): Contributory Negligence:
• Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, s 1
• Damages reduced ‘to such an extent as the court thinks just and equitable having
regard to the claimant’s share in the responsibility for the damage’
• ‘Share’ means no possibility of 100% contributory negligence
A. Defendant’s conduct:
1945 Act says that the defence can be pleaded where the damage suffered by the C
was ‘the result…partly of the fault of [some] other person’ where ‘fault’ is defined as
meaning ‘negligence, breach of statutory duty’ or some other form of conduct
which, before 1945, would have given rise to a defence of contributory negligence.
Contributory negligence will not be available as a defence to all torts.
In some instances, the C’s contributory negligence won’t reduce the damages
payable to the C.
B. Claimant’s conduct:
Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2000] -> Reeves ends up
committing suicide in custody. D= police officers-> should’ve known he was a suicide
risk; should’ve taken care of him. D argues that his action was a break in the chain of
causation. Would make a nonsense of the duty-> should make sure he doesn’t kill
himself.
Particularly unreasonable acts will nonetheless be treated as breaking chain of
causation
Whether a reasonable person in C’s position would’ve acted in the same way.
Doubt arises in the case where the V of a tort suffered from a mental illness that led
her to do something that contributed to the losses that she suffered as a result of
the tort.
Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008]
C. Assessment of reduction:
Two party cases-> the courts determine by how much the damages payable to B
should be reduced by assessing the comparative blameworthiness of A and B for the
losses suffered by B. percentage wise- could be 80% to 20%.
Three party cases-> Fitzgerald v Lane [1989]
D. Self-harm:
Where the V of a tort has deliberately harmed herself and the person who
committed that tort is being sued for the loss resulting from that act of self-harm->
this has troubled the courts.
Courts consider the case where the V was mentally ill when she harmed herself.
Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008] -> employee injured in workplace accident caused by
his employer’s negligence developed post-traumatic stress disorder with the result
that he eventually killed himself. Law Lords were divided over whether the damages
payable to the employee’s dependants in respect of his death should be reduced on
the ground of contributory negligence.
