Defences to Tort claims
Defences to Tort claims
Defences for negligence
There are two defences for a claim in negligence. These are:
- Contributory Negligence
- Consent
Contributory negligence
The amount of the damages that the defendant is responsible for can be reduced depending on the
actions of other parties.
- This comes from the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945.
The amount of the blame that remains with the defendant will be determined by the judge.
Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council (1958)
- A woman was trapped in a public toilet when the door lock became jammed. After
unsuccessfully calling for help she tried to escape.
- She tried to climb up through the gap between the door and the ceiling.
- To get there she had one foot on the toilet and one foot on the toilet roll holder.
- This gave way and she was injured.
- The council’s responsibility for the damages was reduced by 25% because of the way she
tried to escape.
- Damages may be reduced because of the actions of the claimant.
Jayes v IMI (Kynoch) Ltd (1985)
- The claimant lost a finger at work while cleaning a machine with the guard off.
- The employers were liable for the breach of health and safety rules for their failure to
ensure that the guard was in place.
- However, the court decided that 100% of the damages should actually fall with the worker
for taking the guard off in the first place.
- This may be a reduction of 100%.
O’Connell v Jackson (1972)
- Damages were reduced by 15% when the rider of a moped was injured and suffered greater
injuries because they were not wearing a helmet.
- 15% reduction – not wearing a helmet.
Froom v Butcher (1976)
- The driver of a car suffered greater injuries than would have been the case if wearing a seat
belt. His damages were reduced by 20%.
- 20% reduction – not wearing a seat belt.
Stinton v Stinton (1993)
- The damages were reduced by one-third for accepting a lift from a drunk driver.
- The claimant knew that the driver was over the limit.
- If the passenger does not know this, or it would not have been obvious to a reasonable
person, the court may decide that an injured claimant was not contributorily negligent.
- Claimant knowledge of danger is important.
Defences to Tort claims
Defences for negligence
There are two defences for a claim in negligence. These are:
- Contributory Negligence
- Consent
Contributory negligence
The amount of the damages that the defendant is responsible for can be reduced depending on the
actions of other parties.
- This comes from the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945.
The amount of the blame that remains with the defendant will be determined by the judge.
Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council (1958)
- A woman was trapped in a public toilet when the door lock became jammed. After
unsuccessfully calling for help she tried to escape.
- She tried to climb up through the gap between the door and the ceiling.
- To get there she had one foot on the toilet and one foot on the toilet roll holder.
- This gave way and she was injured.
- The council’s responsibility for the damages was reduced by 25% because of the way she
tried to escape.
- Damages may be reduced because of the actions of the claimant.
Jayes v IMI (Kynoch) Ltd (1985)
- The claimant lost a finger at work while cleaning a machine with the guard off.
- The employers were liable for the breach of health and safety rules for their failure to
ensure that the guard was in place.
- However, the court decided that 100% of the damages should actually fall with the worker
for taking the guard off in the first place.
- This may be a reduction of 100%.
O’Connell v Jackson (1972)
- Damages were reduced by 15% when the rider of a moped was injured and suffered greater
injuries because they were not wearing a helmet.
- 15% reduction – not wearing a helmet.
Froom v Butcher (1976)
- The driver of a car suffered greater injuries than would have been the case if wearing a seat
belt. His damages were reduced by 20%.
- 20% reduction – not wearing a seat belt.
Stinton v Stinton (1993)
- The damages were reduced by one-third for accepting a lift from a drunk driver.
- The claimant knew that the driver was over the limit.
- If the passenger does not know this, or it would not have been obvious to a reasonable
person, the court may decide that an injured claimant was not contributorily negligent.
- Claimant knowledge of danger is important.
