Torts contributARY negligence

Torts contributARY negligence

• 1.
  CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IICONTRIBUTORYNEGLIGENCE II ELEMENTS OF CONTRIBUTORY Foresee ability P is libale for contributory negligence if he reasonably foresee that If he did not act as a reasonable man ,he might hurt himself. Jones v Livox Quarries (P rid at the back of a traxcavator which is against the intsruction. A dumber traveling behind trax collided it and P injured.P C.N. the above quotation was held. Causation The word `result’ in the section refers to causation. Jones v Livox Quaries What was the cause of the damage.Was P contributed partly to his damage. Stapley v Gypsum Mines The question of causation to be determined by applying common sense to the fact of each case. Froom v Butcher The q is not what was the cause of accident but what was the cause of damage. P`s conduct which is C.Negligence Act against order/instruction l.Jones v Livox Quaries(riding at back of traxcavator) 2.Stapley v Gypsum Mines(Dcd. Knew the roof of the mine was dummy yet wnt on work against the instruction.) Not wearing crash helmet l. O`connell v Jackson(although D negligence for accident but P C.N. to his injury for not wearing helmet.) 2.Wong Ah Gan v Chan Swei Yueh & anor(P is not C.N. bocox not wearing helmet unless P foresee it might cause injury) Chan Loo Khee v Lai Siew San & anor (parking car with light on at highway not C.N. Yeo Lian Hwa v The Hock Lee Amalgamated Bus Co. Boarding into a moving bus C.N. Wong Mun Kong v Pacific & Driver Drunken Owen v Brimmell If P a passenger knew the driver was drunk with such quantity which might danger P is C.N. Low Kwan Moi v Ramli & Ors & Govt of M`sia Conduct in the agony of the moment If D`s negligence put P in delima and P choose a course of conduct which prove to be wrong, D cannot escape liability provided i.P acted in reasonable aprehension of danger ii.Method used must be reasonable one. Jones v Boyce (Due to D`s negligence a coach break and uncontrol.P jumped to escape but injured.Not C.N.) British School of Motoring Ltd. V Simms & anor (the act of stopping a test car by the examiner was held Act of Infant/Children If the child is very young no C.N. but if older Child then there is a contributory negligence if he fails to exercise below the standard of care of a child of his own age. Lynch v Nurdin (7 yr child who climb on the back of a unattended horse and cart no C.N.) Gough v Thorne (13 ½ yr girl together with her brothers cross the road after the lorry driver signal to do so. A car came from behind the lorry and knock her. P no C.N. becox if a child at that age persuaded to cross,will do so). Symes v Ling Ngan Ngien (a child left in the car by her mother.The child then came out and cross the road and knocked.No C.N. Jag Sing v Tong Fong Omnibus Co.( 7 yr old infant while waiting for bus surged into the roadway and knock by he bus.C.N. liable) Tay Siew Goh v Tay Tien Soo (12y girl alighten from bus quickly Workman Contributory Negligence Flower v Ebbw Vale Steel, Iron & Coal Co. l.The test is what an ordinary workman in the circumstances could have done. 2. Caswell v Powerll Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd. If there is any stautory provision which is to protect a wroker than must comply it.Failure to do so is C.N. 3.Jayes v Imi (Kynoch) Ltd. A workman put his hand inside a machine and cut his finger.Held 100% C.N. and he get nothing)Apportionment of Damages s. 12(1) CLA states that ct must apportion damages on the basis of just and equitable.It is a question of fact. i. the gravity of risk assumed by the claimant is an imprtant factor.Helson v Mckenzies Ltd-P lost her handbag contain huge money.A sales assitant hande over to P and found missing. Held P contributed more to the negligence. Fitzgerald v Lane The issue of C.N. on the part of P should be kept separate from the determination of Contribution between joint tortfeasor. Eg.If (D1) contribute 70% (D2) contribute 30% (P) Contribute 30% 100% - 30% = 70% That 70% divide between both Dl 70% and D2 30%