LLB Help

Facts: C and D were transporting a large quantity of cannabis when D negligently lost control of the vehicle. C was seriously injured. Trial judge rejected his claim in negligence on the basis that the parties were engaged in an unlawful enterprise. C appealed. Ratio: Appeal allowed in part. On the balance of probabilities the transportation of illegal drugs had been the purpose of the journey. The defence of illegality was not applicable since as ‘a matter of causation the damage suffered by C was not caused by his criminal act’.

Facts: A serious injury due to the negligence of D led to C being sentenced for manslaughter. Issue: Whether the intervention of G’s criminal act in the causal relationship between T’s breaches of duty and the damage of which he complained of prevented him from recovering that loss caused by the criminal act? Ratio: The claim was based upon a criminal act for which C was responsible. According to the principle of illegality, D was not liable for effects of that act.

Facts: C was injured as a consequence of jumping from a second-floor window to escape custody of the police. C sued D for damages, claiming that they had not taken reasonable care to prevent him from escaping. Attempting to escape from lawful custody is a criminal offence. Ratio: Appeal dismissed. A police officer carrying out an arrest did not owe the person being arrested a duty of care to prevent him from injuring himself in a foreseeable attempt to escape from custody, an unlawful act.

Facts: C was injured on a drunken plane flight. Issue: Does volenti apply as a defence to C’s negligence claim? Ratio: C had colluded in the dangerous venture and his claim was defeated by the defence of volenti .

Facts: C was injured in a car accident that was the result of the negligent driving of D who had been drinking. C brought a claim for damages against D’s estate. D raised the defence of volenti non fit injuria . Issue: Can the defence of volenti be used in order to preclude from remedy a person who has voluntarily accepted the risk which arises from a driver who is driving a car under the influence of alcohol? Ratio: Judgment in favour of C. Volenti applied to negligence only in cases where C by his words or conduct has impliedly agreed to absolve D from liability, which was not the scenario in this case. Simply knowing the risk is not enough; C must accept it.

Facts: C, a policeman, saw a horse running loose in the street among children. He ran out, chased it and caught it but was injured. Issue: Does volenti non fit injuria prevent on-duty police officers from claiming damages for an injury sustained as a consequence of acting whilst being aware of the risk that this involves? Ratio: D was guilty of negligence by virtue of leaving the horses unattended in a busy street. Police are under general duty to intervene to protect life and property and therefore, the act of C and his injuries were a direct consequence of D’s negligence. Volenti does not prevent C from claiming damages as he did not voluntarily agree to take the risk but did not voluntarily agree to take the risk but did it pursuant to his official duty.

Facts: A driving instructor sued in negligence against a pupil when he was injured in an accident she caused on her third lesson. Ratio: The duty of care to be expected of a learner driver is that of the reasonably competent and experienced driver, and therefore the claim was successful.

Facts: D was employed as a shotfirer in a quarry, and was to test the electric wiring connecting explosive charges. Contrary to instructions that testing must be done from a shelter, D carried out a test in the open and was injured. Issue: Whether the employer could rely on the defence of volenti non fit injuria as the brothers acted  in neglect of express instructions and mandatory precautions, with knowledge of the associated risks? Ratio: Court held that an employer is able to rely on volenti non fit injuria as a complete defence to vicarious liability when the employees act in deliberate neglect. The two brothers had contributed to their own injuries.

Facts: C was severely injured in an accident when hit by a motorcyclist. C was not wearing a cycle helmet and the injuries were to his head when was slowing down and was hit by D approaching from the other direction. Ratio: Judgment for claimant. On the balance of probabilities, D had been travelling at excess speed. He was entirely to blame for the collision. On the balance of probabilities, C would not have sustained less injuries had he wore a helmet. D failed to discharge the burden of proving contributory negligence.

Facts: C sought damages after an accident. D was a car driver who had negligently moved forward into the path of the C, a motorcyclist, who was injured. D argued that C was contributorily negligent in not wearing a crash helmet. Issue: Does a motorist’s failure to wear a helmet amount to contributory negligence in case of an accident? Ratio: Appeal allowed. C should have foreseen the possibility of being in an accident. C must bear some of the responsibility for the consequences of the accident and the amount of damages is to be reduced by 15 per cent.

Facts: Both C and D had drunk about eight to nine pints of beer, and on their way home the driver lost control of his car so that it collided with a lamppost. The passenger sued in negligence. Driver said the passenger was contributorily negligent. Issue: Is the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence for his failure to wear a seat belt? Is the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence for his failure to foresee the possibility that the driver’s ability to drive was impaired by alcohol? Ratio: C is not guilty of contributory negligence for his failure to wear a seat belt as the defendant did not prove that C’s injuries would have been less serious had he wore a seat belt. C is guilty of contributory negligence for his failure to foresee the possibility that the driver’s ability to drive was impaired by alcohol as they were aware of this.

Facts: C suffered head injuries in a motor accident in which he was not wearing a seat belt. Issue: Does one’s failure to wear a seatbelt amount to contributory negligence if their injuries would have been prevented or lessened if they had done so? Ratio: Owing to the fact that his injuries would have been prevented by a seat belt, his damages were reduced by 20% for contributory negligence.

Facts: C was hit from behind and seriously injured while riding on a tow bar on the back of a vehicle, which was forbidden by his employer. Issue: Did the plaintiff suffer ‘damage as a result partly of his own fault’ within the meaning of s. 1(1) and 4 Law Form (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945? Ratio: Appeal dismissed. A person is guilty of contributory negligence if he ought to have foreseen that if he did not act as a reasonable man, he might get hurt. In his consideration, he must take into account the possibility of others being careless. C’s damage awards were reduced by 20 per cent.