Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
17 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Joint fault |
Arises where two or more defenders have contributed in a material way to the same incident, meaning both are partially liable. |
|
|
Anderson v St Andrews Ambulance Association |
Two drivers were found to be at fault in causing collision in which a passenger was injured. This meant both had to pay damages to the pursuer. |
|
|
Flemming v McGillivray |
Negligent driving and not having insurance were considered two separate delicts rather than joint fault. |
|
|
Turnbull v Frame |
Defamatory statements made by two individuals were considered separate delicts and therefore damages were payable from both defenders separately rather than joint fault being established. |
|
|
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 s 1(1). |
When contributory negligence can be established the pursuer could still be entitled to damages, just not full damages for the loss caused. |
|
|
Anderson v Warburtons |
Driver experiencing problems passed two laybys before stopping with car partially on road. Found to be 2/3 negligent for crash that occurred so only got 1/3 of damages. |
|
|
Jones v Livox Quarries |
Pursuer standing on towbar on back of vehicle was found to be contributory negligent for injuries sustained when a car crashed into the vehicle. |
|
|
Pace v Cully |
A taxi driver who had not been wearing his seatbelt did not contribute to negligence because he was taking reasonable care for his safety by accepting police advice for taxi drivers not to wear seatbelts to avoid attacks. |
|
|
Hill v Chivers |
Damages reduced by one third for getting in a vehicle with an obviously drunk driver and not wearing a seatbelt. |
|
|
Galbraiths Curator v Stewart |
Eight year old injured while playing on pipes left in street overnight. No contributory negligence. Child did not have capacity to recognise risk involved. |
|
|
Reeves v Commission of Met Police |
100% contributory negligence for a man who had committed suicide. |
|
|
McCusker v Saveheat Cavity Wall Insulation |
Damages reduced by 50% for bus driver who was driving too fast for the icy conditions. |
|
|
Volenti non fit Iniurua |
Only complete defence in delict. The pursuer was fully aware of the risk of the defenders negligence but consented to the acts that caused the injury anyway. |
|
|
Titchener v British Railways |
Fifteen year old crossing train line should have known she might get hit by a train. |
|
|
ICI v Shatwell |
Experienced shotfirers at quarry set off explosives without basic safety precautions and contrary to employers’ instructions. Volenti was successfully proven. |
|
|
Lindsay v Poole |
Passenger injured in stolen car. It was proven that the pursuer and defender had been working together stealing the car. It was established that there could be no duty of care between two people participating in a joint and continuing illegal act. |
|
|
Clunis v Camden |
You cannot possibly claim delictual damages from having committed criminal acts. |
