Liability defences

Was the claimant negligent?

The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 allows the court to apportion liability between the parties and to reduce the claimant's damages if it finds that the claimant 'suffers damage as a result partly of their own fault and partly of the fault of another person'. It is up to the defendant to prove that the claimant was at 'fault' and that they have contributed to their own injuries although there is no requirement that the claimant owes the defendant a duty of care. The defendant must prove that:

  1. the claimant failed to take proper care of their own safety, and

  2. this lack of care was a contributory cause towards their injuries

The court adopts a fairly subjective test when assessing whether the claimant was contributorily negligent. It will not only consider whether the claimant acted reasonably in taking the risk but will also take into consideration whether it is 'just and equitable' in the circumstances to reduce the claimant's damages. This is a very open test which will depend on the circumstances of the case. The task of the court is to apportion

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

Actions for unlawful police detention and QOCS protection in mixed claims (ALK and another v The Chief Constable of Surrey Police)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In an appeal heard by Mr Justice Bourne, the High Court held that the arrests of a married couple, both of whom were serving Metropolitan Police officers, by Surrey Police were unlawful. The court found that the arresting officers had not given appropriate consideration to voluntary attendance for interview as a less intrusive alternative under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) and Code G. The court stressed that the ‘necessity’ limb in PACE 1984, s 24 is an important constitutional safeguard, following a line of authority that stresses strict adherence to PACE 1984—an officer who gives no real consideration to alternatives runs the ‘plain risk’ of being found to have had no reasonable grounds to believe arrest was necessary. The court therefore allowed the liability appeal. This decision is an important reaffirmation of the strict operational limits on arrest powers. On costs, the court provided useful guidance as to the starting point in mixed personal injury claims, confirming that properly supported PI claims should attract QOCS protection. Bourne J concluded that the claimants’ pleaded and evidenced psychiatric injury claims meant the proceedings could properly be regarded as a personal injury action ‘in the round’ for QOCS purposes, and that the trial judge’s enforcement order permitting 70% of the defendant’s costs should not have been made, under the mixed-claim discretion in CPR 44.16. Written by Connor Wright, barrister, St Philips Chambers.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

Popular documents