• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Contributory negligence and volenti non fit injuria are very similar in nature and effect. Analyse these defences in tort and explain the extent to which you agree with this statement.

Extracts from this document...


Contributory negligence and volenti non fit injuria are very similar in nature and effect. Analyse these defences in tort and explain the extent to which you agree with this statement. The common law recognises the need for defendants to have defences such as contributory negligent and volenti when deems reasonable to impose them. Both defences are similar in nature and effect. Contributory Negligent refers to the claimant being party responsible for their actions and thus contributes to their harm. Volenti Non Fit Injuria, on the other hand, is defined as volenti(willingly) injuria( suffer harm) non fit( that is not actionable). In both defences, the claimant have played a part in causing harm to themselves, and ought to sustain some responsibility- rather than allowing the defendant to bear the whole liability for what in essence was not wholly their fault. Their similarities are great as in they lessen the defendant?s liability, by acting as defences the defendants can raise. zl For contributory negligence to be raised, it must prove that the claimant had contributed to their harm. ...read more.


Where the claimant had knowledge of a risk, it may be evidence that they had consented to it but it is not in itself conclusive proof. The consent will only amount to a defence if it is freely given, consents under pressure if not satisfactory. Both of these principles can be seen in the case of Smith v Baker where the defendant had negligently using a crane, so that stones swung over the claimant?s head while he worked. The claimant was aware of it happening, and told the employer but it was to no avail. When he continued to work, he was injured as a stone did fall on his head. The defendant tried to plead volenti, when he continued to work, he knew of the risk and was taking it. However this plea failed as taking on a work which was intrinsically dangerous would amount to consenting to the risk but a job which is not supposedly dangerous but is will not. This differs in Contributory Negligence when usually knowledge of a risk and acting on it may amount to a person being negligent. ...read more.


Their freedom of choice has been forgone in exchange of their moral and social obligation. For example In the case of Haynes v Harwood, 2 horse bolted and the claimant was a policeman who was under the duty to keep peace, had tried to rescue the horses but suffered injuries as a result. The defendant could not use the plea of volenti against them. The defence of contributory negligence used to be a full defence when the claimant has contributed to their injury, they would not be able to claim. However this is extremely unjust and the Law Reform changed it, into a partial defence, the claimant would still be able to claim, but the defence may apply, the defendant may only be liable for the part of the harm that they have contributed. Volenti, on the other hand, if applied is a full defence. Though there are many similarities in both defences, there exist some differences making them to be applicable in different circumstances and garner different effects. Where one is a partial defence and another is a full defence, the former will leave the plaintiff with no remedy and the second with reduced remedy. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Tort section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Tort essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Discuss the extent to which discrimination is prohibited under English and Welsh law (25 ...

    5 star(s)

    The act also protects progressive illnesses that might affect the person later on in life. BUT Discrimination can be justified with disability unlike the others e.g. placing a person within a job which isn't suitable to them. Lastly there is age discrimination which is protected by the Employment Equality (age)

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Taking selected areas of the civil and or criminal law, evaluate whether sportsmen and ...

    4 star(s)

    Looking more closely at football as a whole, claims have been made for injuries sustained on the pitch. However these cases are few and the nature of the injuries received would not only be enough to give liability in normal negligence cases, but are generally very severe instances or injury, perhaps career threatening.

  1. What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible ...

    must have been virtually certain and they must have known them to be. In the terrorist example, 'it might realistically be said that the terrorist did not foresee the killing of a member of the bomb disposal team as a virtual certainty' and therefore would not be classified as a murderer.

  2. Discuss the meaning of fault on the basis for criminal liability. Explain and evaluate ...

    With regards to deterrence, one can say that it encouraged higher standards amongst businessness, as in Cundy V le Cocq where the D was convicted of selling alcohol to a drunken person, and it can also encourage shopkeepers to take more care, as in Harrow LBC V Shah, where a lottery ticket was sold to an under 16.


    The factors that Leonard must take into account when establishing whether to bring a claim of private nuisance against Ken. In deciding whether a private nuisance (of either type)

  2. Law- Negligence

    Lords Delvin and Morris argued that as long as the relationship is "equivalent to contract", the relationship should be recognised, and hence liability of the defendant proven. The significance of this case therefore lies in its general approach to the question of how the existence of a duty of care ought to be established in general.

  1. negligence in tort

    duty, the question then arises whether the defendant has been in breach of this duty. The standard of care expected of a particular defendant is usually set by the law, but the question of whether the defendant fell below that standard is to be determined by looking at all the circumstances of the case.

  2. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    Negligence occurs when: 1. Somebody does not exercise the standard of care that a reasonably careful person would use under the circumstances. (The standard of care is a way of measuring how much care one person owes another. For some people the standard of care is higher than others.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work