• 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...

Introduction

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.

Middle

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.

Conclusion

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)

    Abu Hamza where he said that "9/11 bombers were hero's" The third type of discrimination is Religious discrimination, which is controlled by the Employment Equality (Religious and Belief) Regulations 2003 which is an EU directive from the EU targeting just the UK which makes it unlawful to discriminate in the field of employment on the basis of religion or belief.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Questions related to the tort of negligence.

    3 star(s)

    sell it, until the time that they do, they will be the occupiers, and so have occupiers liability. (D) (II) This question is on vicarious liability, as defined above. The good points of employers being liable in most cases for the torts of their employees are that the employer is

  1. Law- Negligence

    The Caparo case considered the liability of an auditor for financial loss suffered by investors. However, it also set out the three pints which a court must consider to establish whether a duty of care exists.

  2. Gross negligence and recklessness.

    Such cases question Diplock's assertion that there is no moral difference between these two states. Equally, the Cunningham test was certainly applied by juries in countless cases (both before and after Cunningham) without noticeable evidence that juries were having difficulty with a 'fine and unpracticable' distinction.

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

    However, it can be argued does it really promote higher standards? Similar to the dispute against strict liability offences regulating businesses, instead of standards being higher, they might drop, due to the fact the D won't know what is good enough.

  2. UNIT3 ASSIGNMENT4 LAW OF TORT

    The test is objective (i.e. what a reasonable person would consider a nuisance rather than what the claimant himself considered a nuisance), and the court takes many factors into consideration, including the purpose or motive of the defendant (Ken) and the following: The court will consider whether it was practicable

  1. Types of Tort Law and Relevant Cases.

    This is known as damages. Also the plaintiff can ask the court to order the defendant to stop doing something they are or have previously been doing, this most commonly happens in contracts made between two people, for example if one person made a sale of a painting worth one

  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