Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
NEGLIGENCE DEFENCES - Coggle Diagram
NEGLIGENCE DEFENCES
Consider ‘res ipsa loquitur’ - the thing speaks for itself, where necessary (this is unlikely to be an issue).
-
-
-
Scott v London (1865)
- in D's CONTROL
- can only fall due to negligence
- No other explanation
-
Sayers v Harlow (1958)
Claimant PARTLY to blame - TOILET escape, DAMAGES REDUCED by 25%
Froom v Butcher (1976)
Claimant PARTLY to blame - SEATBELT, DAMAGES REDUCED by 20%
Volenti: CONSENT, COMPLETE DEFENCE, NO LIABILITY FOR THE DEFENDANT
1.Claimant should have KNOWN RISK involved
2.Claimant should have HAD A CHOICE whether TO TAKE RISK or not
3.Claimant should have ACCEPTED RISK of suffering harm
Smith v Baker (1981)
HAD NO CHOICE, defence did not succeed
Stermer v Lawson (1977)
DID NOT KNOW RISK, defence did not succeed
-
-