Revill v Newbery [1996] QB 567
Facts:
Ratio:
- C, a burglar, was shot by D as he attempted to gain access to D’s shed.
- C sued D in negligence and under the 1984 Act.
Ratio:
- CoA rejected D’s attempt to raise the defence of illegality.
- C was contributorily negligent and his damages decreased by ⅔.
Comments
Post a Comment