Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Remoteness, Defences & Remedies - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Bradford v Robinson Rentals- frostbite grouped with all cold-related injuries as a 'type'. Frostbite was not too remote
      - Page v Smith- personal injury includes physical or psychiatric- foreseeable
    - - Tremain v Pike- the disease was very rare and how it was contracted was rare, and the courts interpreted it very narrowly. Type of injury from the rate urine was unforeseeable and too remote (rarer to take narrow approach but justified through the disproportionate precautions that would have to have been taken to prevent the type of loss)
- - - - Dann v Hamilton- knowing the risk is not the same as consenting (knowing the driver had drunk doesn't mean she had agreed to waive liability)
      - Morris v Murray- C accepted a flight from an obviously drunk pilot and was drinking with the pilot beforehand and all flights that day were suspended. C impliedly agreed to risk of injury
      - Sports: C agrees to risks inherant in that sport, not anything like extreme foul play
    - - Smith v Charles Baker & Sons- difficult when C is an employee as they may not have much other choice, so agreement may not be voluntary
      - Baker v T.E Hopkins & Sons- acting in an emergency in an impulsive decision si not voluntarily agreeing to risk
    - - S149 Road Traffic Act 1988- prevents use of consent by motorists facing claims from their passengers (a drunk driver cannot rely on consent of a passenger)
      - S2 UCTA 1977- b2b- S2(1) prohibits excluding or restricting liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence S2(2) other types of loss may be excluded subject to reasonableness
      - CRA 2015- b2c- cannot exclude liability for death/personal injury from negligence. S62- other loss is only binding is excluding it is fair and merely knowing of the term is not voluntary acceptance of it
  - - - Jones v Livox- C must fail to take reasonable steps for their own safety and this failure must contribute to Cs damage
    - - Owens v Brimmell- passenger is guilty of contributory negligence when they know the driver has consumed excessive alcohol or they had gone drinking with the driver, knowing they would later lose capacity. Being drunk yourself is not ax excuse to not take reasonable steps
      - Sayers v Harlow- (attempting to stand on toilet roll holder) did not take steps a reasonable and prudent person would take
      - Jones v Boyce- allowances made for C's in an emergency situation trying to save themselves
      - Gough v Thorne- if C is a child, this is taken into account
      - Baker v T.E Hopkins- rescuers generally protected from contributory negligence
        
        Harrison v BRB- same does not apply where C causes emergency situation in the first place
      - St George v Home Office- C was having withdrawal seizures and had made prison staff aware, they failed to adequately take care of him and he died falling from bunk due to a seizure. Was not contributory as he made staff aware
    - - Froom v Butcher- no wearing seatbelt is contributory as although the accident would have still occurred, it worsens the damage (same applies to precautions like helmets)
    - - Fitzgerald v Lane- amount reduced decided first, then the split amongst D's decided (multiple D's)
- - - - when considering if disproportionate: seriousness of conduct, is the illegality central to the tort, whether it was intentional
- - - - Pain, suffering and loss of amenity damages: always expressed as a single lump sum
      - For future expenses, they will find annual losses and multiply by number of years (taking into account investment of the lump sum)
    - - state benefits received as a result of the loss, contractual sick pay, reduandancy payment,
      - Not deduced: insurance pay-outs, ill-health pensions, gifts or charity
    - - Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934- estate can claim for all pecuniary/non-pecuniary loss suffered by the deceased up until the death. No claim for the death itself or any loss occurring after death.
      - Fatal Accidents Act 1976- dependants of the deceased can claim for losses suffered as a result/after death of C. Dependants are close blood relatives/married/cohabited over 2 years. Damages calculated same way but lower multiplier