November 21 Case and Notes

November 21 Case and Notes - Chapter XII Defences 1...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
November 21, 2008 Chapter XII Defences 1. Plaintiff’s Conduct A. Contributory Negligence Affirmative defence, must be raised and proven by D If P was negligence, then they may not recover anything, totally bars recovery by P if P’s neg was a substantial factor in the accident. If the P’s neg contributed to the accident, there is a total bar, no matter how much the P’s neg contributed, it is a total bar. Failure to wear seatbelts and motorcycle helmets is not CN because it didn’t cause the accident, it aggravates the damages. P has a right to recover something, but not the damages that occurred because you didn’t have your seatbelt on, anticipatory precautions to be taken before accident occurs, available consequences. Not defences to intentional torts. If D’s actions are intentional acts, no CN EXCEPTIONS: The last clear chance (must be raised and proven by P): Farmer puts his donkey on the road (neg), D comes along, and runs into the donkey, D had the last clear chance to avoid the donkey: P neg puts himself in a position of peril After that, P no longer has the opportunity to avoid harm. D comes along, and neg causes an accident and D had an opportunity to avoid the harm, then D had the last clear chance When we have LCC in a CN jurisdiction, P starts the cause of action, D says CN, and P says LCC. D has to prove CN, when he does, P has to show LCC and when P proves this, then P can recover everything. Butterfield v. Forrester King’s Bench, 1809 Law: If a man lays logs of wood across a highway, though a person may with care ride safely by, yet if by means thereof my horse stumble and fling me action ensues. Facts: The pl was injured after striking an obstruction in the roadway. The df while making repairs to his house, put a pole across the road. The pl, who had just left a public house as it neared dark, while riding his horse violently through the streets of Derby, struck the pole and was seriously injured. A witness state if the pl had not been riding so he would have observed the pole. There was no evidence the pl was intoxicated at the time. Reasoning: One person at fault will not dispense with the requirement that another person use ordinary car for himself. Riding a horse as fast as it could go through the streets, near dark is not the exercise of ordinary care. A person cannot ride upon a hazard and expect the other to be solely at fault when he shares in the fault. Issue: Whether the pl has a duty of care to avoid the negligent acts of the df? Procedure: Jury trial for the df, Rule is refused.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Holding: Notes from the Case: Davies v. Mann Exchequer, 1842 Law: Facts: P had tied down his donkey’s feet to keep it from running away and the donkey was left by the side of the road. D was coming down in his wagon at high speed and hit the donkey and killed it. Reasoning: According to the court, even though there was negligence on part of the P, but D could
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 10/20/2009 for the course TORTS 106 taught by Professor Palmer during the Spring '08 term at McMaster University.

Page1 / 5

November 21 Case and Notes - Chapter XII Defences 1...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online