{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}


Issue by jumping off the train did the p fail to take

Info iconThis preview shows pages 40–42. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Issue: By jumping off the train did the P fail to take reasonable care for his own safety? Held: (Gibbs) Where a Plaintiff has by reason of the negligence of the defendant been so placed that he can only escape from inconvenience by taking a risk, the question whether his action in taking the risk is unreasonable is to be answered by weighing the degree of inconvenience to which he will be subjected against the risk that he takes in order to try and escape it Standard of care for children Kelly v Boga Valley County Council Facts: Young boy electrocuted. D raised contributory negligence o Following McHale v Watson, the conduct of a particular infant plaintiff charged with contributory negligence is to be measure according to the hypothetical conduct of an infant of same age. o Since the measure is objective, reference to the intelligence, experience, and development of the child are to be treated as allusions to the notional levels of intelligence, experience and development with a child of that age expected to attain. 2. CAUSATION
Background image of page 40

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Causal connection: that the failure to take reasonable care for his own safety must have contributed to the loss Also the Plaintiff’s acts may contribute to the damage suffered without contributing to the accident from which those injuries occurred. See: Froom v Butcher Facts: A man driving without seatbelts (although at the time this was not required by statute) got into an accident with a negligent driver. Defendant argued that if he had worn a seat belt he would have only suffered a broken finger. Issue: Was the P contributory negligent? Held: The Plaintiff did not contribute to accident; but contributed to the damages. The Plaintiff’s negligence need only contribute to his or her won injuries, and not to the accident. APPROPRIATION OF DAMAGES According to s.26(1) Wrongs Act the effect of a successful claim of contributory negligence will result in a reduction in the plaintiff’s damages, to whatever extent the court thinks is just and equitable, given their share of responsibility for the injury. The court determines each party’s responsibility by ascertaining the extent to which each party departed from the standard of care required of them in the situation ( Pennington v Norris- P crossed a road at night without looking, and was hit by D’s car; held that the plaintiff had departed from the standard of care, but only a little, because people often crossed without looking (?!?). the defendant had departed further, because not only had he failed to be careful in regards to people crossing, he was also speeding on a wet misty night, when there were a lot of people on the roads. So D was liable for 80%, P for 20%. The court also pointed out that the D’s act could harm others, while D’s could not ). So, unlike in breach, the court will have regard to how much the parties have
Background image of page 41
Image of page 42
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page40 / 66

Issue By jumping off the train did the P fail to take...

This preview shows document pages 40 - 42. Sign up to view the full document.

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