DEFENCES TO THE TORT OF NEGLIGENCE

Topic of the day

- Contributory negligence

- Volenti non fit injuria

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

Contributory negligence refers to the failure of a plaintiff to exercise reasonable care for their own safety, which contributes to their injury or damages. In the United States, contributory negligence was traditionally a complete defense, barring recovery for the plaintiff if they were found even slightly negligent. However, many jurisdictions have adopted comparative negligence statutes, which allocate damages based on each party's degree of fault while In the UK, contributory negligence is governed by the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, which allows courts to reduce the damages awarded to a plaintiff based on their own negligence. See the cases of Butterfield v. Forrester (1809) which is an early English case establishing the principle of contributory negligence and the case of Davies v. Mann (1842) which is another landmark case illustrating contributory negligence, where the plaintiff's negligence contributed to the accident.

VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA

"Volenti non fit injuria" translates to "to one who is willing, no harm is done." It is a legal doctrine that states that if a person willingly exposes themselves to a known risk, they cannot later claim compensation for any harm suffered as a result of that risk. In common law jurisdictions, the defense of volenti non fit injuria is based on principles of consent and assumption of risk. It is often applied in cases involving sports, dangerous recreational activities, and employment in hazardous occupations. While the defense is generally available, it may not apply if the plaintiff's consent was obtained through fraud, duress, or coercion. Additionally, the plaintiff's knowledge and appreciation of the risks must be genuine for the defense to succeed. See the cases of Smith v. Baker & Sons (1891) which is a landmark English case where the plaintiff, a stevedore, was injured while working in a dangerous environment. The court held that he had voluntarily accepted the risks inherent in his job, and therefore could not claim damages and the case of Titchener v. British Railways Board (1983) which is another significant case where the court upheld the defense of volenti non fit injuria, ruling that the plaintiff, a trespasser on railway property, had willingly exposed himself to the danger of electrocution.