LAW1113 Lecture Notes - Lecture 15: Contributory Negligence, Municipal Tramways Trust, Seat Belt
LAW1113&TORTS&-&CASE&SUMMARIES&AND&KEY&POINTS&
NEGLIGENCE&–&DEFENCES&&
!
Contributory&Negligence&
• P’s!contribution!of!harm!on!themselves!
• Partial!defence:!Does!not!defeat!P’s!claim!all!together!(i.e.!damages!can!still!be!paid,!but!they!are!
reduced)!
Section&
Details&
s&26,&Wrongs&Act&
If!a!person!suffers!damage!partly!as!the!result!of!the!claimant’s!failure!to!take!reasonable!care!(contributory!
negligence)!and!partly!of!the!wrong!of!any!other!person!or!persons:!-!!
(1) except!as!provided!in!section!63,!a!claim!in!respect!of!the!damage!is!not!defeated!by!reason!of!the!
contributory!negligence!of!the!claimant;!!
and!
(2) the!damages!recoverable!in!respect!of!the!wrong!must!!be!reduced!to!such!an!extent!as!the!court!thinks!
just!and!equitable,!having!regard!to!the!claimant’s!share!in!the!responsibility!for!the!damage.!!
!
*Note:!Refer!to!the!common!law!for!the!test&
s&63,&Wrongs&Act&
&
In!determining!the!extent!of!a!reduction!in!damages!
by!reason!of!contributory!negligence,!a!court!may!
determine!a!reduction!of!100%!if!the!court!thinks!it!
just!and!equitable!to!do!so,!with!the!result!that!the!
claim!for!damages!is!defeated!
!
*Note:!Likely!not!to!use!this!as!negligence!test!has!
been!fulfilled,!which!means!that!there!is!some!form!
of!culpability!!on!the!part!of!D.!
APPORTIONMENT&&
If&the&P&has&been&placed&in&a&situation&of&danger&or&
inconvenience&as&a&result&of&the&D’s&negligence&then&
whether&the&P’s&action&is&reasonable&is&determined&
by&comparing&the°ree&of&inconvenience&against&
the&risk&taken&to&avoid&it.!
!
*Note:!A!court!may!determine!a!reduction!of!100%!if!
the!court!thinks!it!just!and!equitable!to!do!so,!with!
the!result!that!the!claim!for!damages!is!defeated&
s&62,&Wrongs&Act&
(1) The!principles!that!are!applicable!in!determining!
whether!a!person!has!been!negligent!also!apply!
in!determining!whether!the!person!who!suffered!
harm!has!been!contributorily!negligent!in!failing!
to!take!precautions!against!the!risk!of!that!harm!
(2) For!that!purpose:!
(a) the!standard!of!care!required!of!the!person!
who!suffered!harm!is!that!of!a!reasonable!
person!in!the!position!of!that!person;!and!
(b) the!matter!is!to!be!determined!on!the!basis!
of!what!that!person!knew!or!ought!to!have!
known!at!the!time!
NEGLIGENCE&CRITERIA&ACCEPTED&
• Considers!P’s!failure!to!take!reasonable!of!
themselves!
• Objective!reasonable!person!standard!unless!
modified!by!the!law!
• Assesses!negligence!in!terms!of!foreseeable,!etc.!
!
*Note:!Application!of!‘But!for’!test!is!broader!than!
application!for!D;!Tortfeasors!can!sue!another!for!
contributory!negligence!
!
!
Case&
Details&
Pennington;)Froom)
Ø Use:!Presence!of!contributory!negligence&
Ø Test:!But!for!P’s!negligence,!P!would!not!have!
been!harmed?!&
Ø The&contribution&to&harm&may&arise&where:&
• the!P’s!failure!to!take!care!contributed!to!the!
accident!occurring:!e.g.!Pennington!
• the!P’s!failure!to!take!care!contributed!to!the!
Facts&(Pennington)&&
• P!got!hit!on!the!road.!!!
• D!was!driving!in!built!up!area.!!!
• P!had!walked!into!the!road!without!keeping!a!
proper!lookout!!!
• ‘But!for’!test!satisfied!and!contributory!
negligence!made!out!
Facts&(Froom)&&
LAW1113&TORTS&-&CASE&SUMMARIES&AND&KEY&POINTS&
injury(–(i.e.!its!nature!or!extent:!e.g.!Froom!
!
• P!was!driving!normally!
• D’s!reckless!driving!caused!a!head!on!collision!
• P!was!not!wearing!a!seatbelt!and!there!were!not!
seatbelt!laws!at!the!time,!but!it!was!deemed!that!
it!wasn't!a!reasonable!liberty!
• The!decision!to!not!wear!the!seat!belt!
exacerbated!the!injury!(contributory!negligence!
made!out)!
Caterson)v)Commissioner)for)Railways,)per&Gibbs&J:&
Ø Use:&Sudden!Emergency!(A.K.A.!Doctrine!of!
Alternative!Danger)&
Ø Test:&Did!D!put!P!in!the!position!where!they!
could!not!avoid!harm!to!themselves?&
Ø Considerations:&
o Level!of!inconvenience!in!breach!is!
considered&
o Significance!&
*Note:!Principle!allows!a!degree!of!leniency!in!
addressing!the!P’s!behaviour!!
Facts&&
• P!was!helping!X!onto!a!train!
• Son!(Y)!was!on!platform!waiting!
• Train!began!moving!without!any!notification!
(Successfully!demonstrates!negligence)!!!
• P,!who!was!still!on!the!train,!jumped!off!the!
train.!!!
• No!contributory!negligence!(sudden!emergency)!
(i.e.!Y!would!be!left!alone!on!platform!is!
significant)!
&
&
Joslyn)v)Berryman:)
Ø Use:&Drink!driving&
Ø Test:&Would!an&ordinary!reasonable!person!have!foreseen!that!accepting!a!lift!from!an!intoxicated!driver!
would!expose!them!to!a!risk!of!injury?!If!so,!they!are!contributorily!negligent.&
Ø Conditions:&
o P!accepted!ride!from!D!who!has!been!drinking!
o If!P!was!drunk!the!objective!standard!is!utilised!
*Note:!If!D!did!not!appear!to!be!drunk,!it!contributory!negligence!may!be!argued;!volenti!would!be!in!the!
view!of!P!(subjective!standard)&
Pennington)v)Norris)
Ø Use:&Apportionment!("just!and!equitable”)!
Ø Test:!How!far!did!P!each!depart!from!their!
standard!of!care?!
Ø Considerations:!
o ‘just!and!equitable’!involves!a!comparison!of!
culpability!–who!was!more!culpable!than!the!
other!
o This!does!not!equate!to!moral!
blameworthiness!
o Rather!it!is!a!comparison!of!each!parties’!
degree!of!departure!from!their!respective!
standards!of!care!
o Relevant!considerations!might!include:!
1. The!number!of!people!put!at!risk!by!the!
failure!to!take!care;!
2. The!obvious!dangerousness!of!the!
act/omission;!
3. Relative!responsibility!in!contributing!to!
the!harm!
*Note:!Precedent!usually!needed!
Facts&(As&per&Pennington)&&
• First!instance:!50%!reduced!
• High!court:!20%!reduced!
• Other!factors:!!
1. Duration!of!the!breach!(for!as!long!as!D!was!
driving!recklessly)!
2. Maturity!of!the!actor!
&
&
Document Summary
Contributory negligence: p"s contribution of harm on themselves, partial defence: does not defeat p"s claim all together (i. e. damages can still be paid, but they are reduced) *note: refer to the common law for the test s 63, wrongs act. The contribution to harm may arise where: the p"s failure to take care contributed to the accident occurring: e. g. pennington the p"s failure to take care contributed to the. *note: a court may determine a reduction of 100% if the court thinks it just and equitable to do so, with the result that the claim for damages is defeated. Negligence criteria accepted: considers p"s failure to take reasonable of themselves, objective reasonable person standard unless modified by the law, assesses negligence in terms of foreseeable, etc. *note: application of but for" test is broader than application for d; tortfeasors can sue another for contributory negligence.
