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.

Authors Avatar by zhilinglim27gmailcom (student)

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. An example is the case of Baker v Willoughby where the claimant was involved in a car accident that was a result of the defendant’s negligence. Later the claimant was shot in the same leg by a robber. However the defendant successfully claimed for contributory negligence, lessening the damages by 50% as the claimant was careless in the way that he had a clear view of the road for 200 yards and had not done any form of evasion. This shows that this is a partial defence, as a claimant cannot be fully responsible of his own negligence.

Join now!

The claimant must prove that they had fallen under a standard of care. This standard of care is an objective one it is of a reasonable person involved in the relevant activity.  For example in children, the standard of care of one which could be reasonably expected, after taking into account the child’s age and development. In the case of Evans v Souls Garage, the claimant had injured himself by inhaling fumes from petrol. He successfully sued the defendant for negligently selling petrol to him but the damages were reduced by a third for his contributory negligence.

This there are ...

This is a preview of the whole essay