16. Defences and limitation

2021 ◽  
pp. 199-212
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Contributory Negligence ◽  
Limitation Periods ◽  
The Law

This chapter first discusses the defence of contributory negligence, voluntary assumption of risk, and illegality. Contributory negligence occurs when the claimant has contributed to his own damage, and permits damages to be apportioned according to what is just and equitable. Voluntary assumption of risk is a complete defence, on the basis that the claimant freely agreed to run the risk of damage. Illegality is a complete defence, on the grounds that the law will not reward or appear to condone an illegal act. The chapter then turns to limitation periods, which restrict the amount of time within which legal actions must be commenced. The main statute is the Limitation Act 1980.

16. Defences and limitation

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Contributory Negligence ◽  
Limitation Periods ◽  
The Law

This chapter first discusses the defence of contributory negligence, voluntary assumption of risk, and illegality. Contributory negligence occurs when the claimant has contributed to his own damage, and permits damages to be apportioned according to what is just and equitable. Voluntary assumption of risk is a complete defence, on the basis that the claimant freely agreed to run the risk of damage. Illegality is a complete defence, on the grounds that the law will not reward or appear to condone an illegal act. The chapter then turns to limitation periods, which restrict the amount of time within which legal actions must be commenced. The main statute is the Limitation Act 1980.

16. Defences and limitation

2019 ◽  
pp. 196-209
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Contributory Negligence ◽  
Limitation Periods ◽  
The Law

This chapter first discusses the defence of contributory negligence, voluntary assumption of risk, and illegality. Contributory negligence occurs when the claimant has contributed to his own damage, and permits damages to be apportioned according to what is just and equitable. Voluntary assumption of risk is a complete defence, on the basis that the claimant freely agreed to run the risk of damage. Illegality is a complete defence, on the grounds that the law will not reward or appear to condone an illegal act. The chapter then turns to limitation periods, which restrict the amount of time within which legal actions must be commenced. The main statute is the Limitation Act 1980.

11. General Defences

2019 ◽  
pp. 161-174
Author(s):  
Dr Karen Dyer
Keyword(s):  
Law Reform ◽  
Online Resources ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
Contributory Negligence ◽  
The Law

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses general defences, covering key debates, sample questions, diagram answer plan, tips for getting extra marks, and online resources. To answer questions on this topic, students need to understand the following: the concept of negligence; the Occupier's Liability Acts; the defence of volenti non fit injuria; the defence of contributory negligence and the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945; and the defence of illegality — ex turpi causa non oritur action.

5. Defences to Negligence

Tort Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenny Steele
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
Causal Influence ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Contributory Negligence ◽  
The Law ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter explores three defences to negligence which are also defences to other torts: volenti non fit injuria or willing assumption of risk, the illegality defence (also known as ex turpi causa), and contributory negligence. In relation to contributory negligence, the chapter considers responsibility, which involves questions both of causal influence and of fault, before turning to a discussion of apportionment of responsibility between the parties, and proportionality. In relation to illegality, recent decisions of the Supreme Court are examined.Relevant provisions of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 are extracted, together with further extracts from significant cases.

scholarly journals THE LAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE) ACT, 1945

1946 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 105-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glanville L. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Law Reform ◽  
Contributory Negligence ◽  
The Law

Liability for Means of Mass Transportation in Scandinavia

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 170-191
Author(s):  
Bjarte Askeland
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Legal Culture ◽  
Air Traffic ◽  
Mass Transportation ◽  
Contributory Negligence ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Social Security Benefits

Abstract The article presents an overview of Norwegian law with regard to damages caused by means of mass transportation by buses, railways and airplanes. The author explains why and how in Norway, as elsewhere in Scandinavia, there is strict liability for damages caused by means of mass transportation. Also the assessment of damages in the mentioned categories is discussed. For personal injuries there are no caps for trains or buses, partly because a greater part of the loss of income is covered by social security benefits, something which is typical of the ‘Nordic model’. Along the same lines, the rules on contributory negligence favour the victim somewhat more than in other parts of Europe, with regard to accidents caused by both buses and trains. Hence the law is all in all rather friendly to the victim. As for damage caused by air traffic, there are tensions between the ‘victim-friendly’ attitude and the relevant EU regulations which make the Montreal Convention applicable to Scandinavian law. These tensions are discussed towards the end of the article. Thus the article highlights and illustrates how the Scandinavian legal culture with the ‘Nordic Model’ as its special hallmark endorses solutions that somewhat contradict the common solutions in continental Europe and in the UK.

A Treatise on the Law of Contributory Negligence

1899 ◽  
Vol 12 (8) ◽  
pp. 575
Author(s):  
J. P. C. ◽  
Charles Fisk Beach ◽  
John J. Crawford
Keyword(s):  
Contributory Negligence ◽  
The Law

23. Defences

2019 ◽  
pp. 745-787
Author(s):  
Simon Deakin ◽  
Zoe Adams
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Consumer Rights ◽  
Contributory Negligence ◽  
Supreme Court Case ◽  
The Law ◽  
Limitation Of Action

This chapter begins with a brief discussion of the role of defences in the law of torts. It then considers their application to torts which require proof of damage in order to be actionable, and in particular with the tort of negligence. The discussions cover contributory negligence; consent; exclusion and limitation of liability; illegality; necessity; inevitable accident; authorisation; and limitation of action. The chapter takes into account recent statutory developments including the effects of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 on the law governing exclusion and limitation of liability. It also examines the extensive Supreme Court case law reexamining the defence of illegality.

Liability for Accidents

1968 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. Jolowicz
Keyword(s):  
Law Reform ◽  
Recent Book ◽  
General Terms ◽  
Flexible Instrument ◽  
Contributory Negligence ◽  
The Law ◽  
Draft Bill

In the Preface to his recent book, Samples of Lawmaking, Lord Devlin rather sadly doubted “whether judges will now of their own motion contribute much more to the development of the law. Statute,” he said, “is a more powerful and flexible instrument for the alteration of the law than any that a judge can wield.” Since those words were written Lord Devlin has himself contributed to some substantial judicial reforms of the law, notably in Rookes v. Barnard and Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners Ltd., but it does, of course, remain true that it is very much easier for the legislature than for any court, however strong, to bring changes to the law. It is also true, generally at least, that when we speak of law reform we mean reform by statute and we try to formulate in a draft Bill the rules of law that we should like to see. To my mind, however, it is unfortunate that we so often try to find a formulation which provides in some detail for the particular situations we have in mind and which is designed to give the court the minimum opportunity for what is sometimes called creative interpretation. With a few exceptions—the Contributory Negligence Act and the Occupiers’ Liability Act are examples—we do not legislate in such a way as to give the judges a new principle expressed in general terms and leave it to them to work out the application of that principle in the cases that arise.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document