• 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)

    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

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

    4 star(s)

    Whilst the usual rules of criminal law apply, sometimes the results are not always consistent. For example in the case of R v Lincoln (1990) 12 Cr App R 250 a football player punched an opposing member of the team.

  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. negligence in tort

    This basic test is whether damage would not have occurred but for the breach of duty. This can be seen in the case of Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital (1969); the plaintiff's husband went to the defendant's hospital and complained of vomiting.

  1. Gross negligence and recklessness.

    This is illustrated in Shimmen (1987) where the accused was showing off his Korean martial arts skills. He lashed out with his foot anticipating that it would stop two inches short of the shop window. He miscalculated and broke the window.


    liable for an employee of toxiclear, which in this case was James's actions, he may of been aware of toxiclear lorries on his land but this does not indicate that he was aware of what they were doing on his land, thus, he could not of prevented it from happening

  1. Types of Tort Law and Relevant Cases.

    also a law that protects an individual from any harm that may be caused by the unreasonable actions of another. Tort claims are based on the legal premise of the duty of care and that people are liable for the consequences of their behavior especially if it caused injury.

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

    This includes trespassers and those who exceed their permission. It sets out the occupier's duty of care to trespassers. The duty is to take reasonable care to see that the trespasser is protected from dangers that the occupier knows about and can reasonably expect a trespasser to encounter. An occupier will only owe trespassers a duty to care for their safety: 1.

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