• 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)

    Article 9 of the European convention on Human rights as incorporated into domestic law under the Rights Act 1998 can also enforce the right to religious freedom, the old law of England and Wales only used to protect Christians or Blasphemy.

  2. Marked by a teacher

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

    4 star(s)

    claim would be made as it brings bad publicity to the club. Often the club will sort matters out away from the public eye and the press in private. Governing bodies such as the Football Association may become involved to enforce their own rules.

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

    many leading writers such as Alan Norrie have questioned the nature of this clarity 'I argue that the law of indirect intent may still remain unclear after the recent House of Lords decision in Woollin'[5] HK8 Visit coursework gf in gf fo gf for gf more project gf Do gf

  2. Types of Tort Law and Relevant Cases.

    million and then tried selling it again if they were offered a better price, the person who originally purchased the painting can order an injunction from the court so that the seller cannot sell the painting to anyone else. Sometimes one act can include both a tort and a crime

  1. Three liability cases - Claim 1-- Auto Emergency Breakdown Service Claim 2- Santa ...

    A safe system of working This duty includes such matters as organization of work, the manner and order in which it is to be carried out, the number of employees needed for specific tasks and what each person is actually to do, safety precautions and special instructions, warnings and notices, particularly to inexperienced employees.

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

    Other may counter argue no, as justice isn't given in some scenarios, and liability depending upon fault doesn't always give the best results. In respect of the public interest, strict liability offences are good as they regulate business, such as in Smedleys V Breed where a caterpillar was found in a can of peas.

  1. 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.

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

    the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there." The occupiers of the premise must concern about the visitors for example the safety of the visitors.

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