LLB Help

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.

What does the Act do? The Act codified and consolidates large parts of existing case law and statute, specifically in relation to the defences of justification (now ‘truth’), journalistic qualified privilege (now ‘publication on a matter of public interest’) and fair comment (now ‘honest opinion’). The latter two defences have been modified and are not mere codifications. The Act also established a ‘serious harm’ threshold for bringing a defamation claim and introduces a single publication rule and a new defence for website operators. The Act also reverses the presumption regarding mode of trial - to judge rather than jury. Section 1: Serious Harm A statement is no longer defamatory unless a claimant can show that ‘... its publication had caused or is likely to cause serious harm to [his/her] reputation…’. Section 2: The Defence of Truth Section 2 is effectively a rebadging of the defence of ‘justification’, whereby ‘... it is a defence to an action for defamation for the ...