|
Badger v Ministry of
Defence [2005] QBD
Full case
here |
^[Tort – contributory negligence]
D employed the deceased as a boiler maker. During the course of his
employment, he had been exposed to asbestos, which caused him to develop
asbestosis he developed lung cancer which eventually killed him. D smoked
and so contributed to the negligence that caused his death.
Held: D did not take reasonable care
for his own safety.
Continuing to smoke amounted to contributory
negligence which was causative of lung cancer. A reasonably prudent man,
warned that there was a substantial risk that smoking would seriously
damage his health, would stop smoking.
C won damages reduced by 20% |
|
Booth v White [2003] CA |
[Remedies -
contributory negligence - allowing himself to be carried by drunken
driver, C does not have to question the driver as to how much he had to
drink]
C and D were
drinking in a pub, but not always together. C was injured as a
passenger in D's car.
Held:
Reaffirmed the principles set out in Owens. Specifically, that the law did
not require a passenger to question a driver as to how much alcohol he had
consumed. Therefore, the judge was not wrong in finding on the facts that
the passenger was not contributorily negligent. |
|
Green v Gaymer [1999] QBD |
[Remedies -
contributory negligence - allowing himself to be carried by drunken driver
where it is obvious, damages reduced by 20%]
C was the pillion passenger on
a motorcycle that hit a lamppost, C was injured and D who had been
drinking, was killed.
Held:
Evidence that deceased driver had consumed at least five pints of cider.
Reasonable to conclude claimant was aware that the deceased's capacity to
drive was impaired when they left the pub and found guilty of 20%
contributory negligence.
|
|
Malone v Rowan [1984] QBD |
[Remedies -
contributory negligence - not contributory if D's condition as a drunken
driver is not obvious]
C the widow of a
man who had been a passenger in a car driven by a man who had been
drinking but displayed no obvious signs of drunkenness.
Held: No
deduction for contributory negligence. Emphasised that the burden of proof
is on defendant and also there was no direct evidence of the deceased
passenger's knowledge of what the driver had consumed.
|
|
Owens v Brimmell [1977] QBD |
[Remedies -
contributory negligence - 20% deduction for not wearing a seat belt and
allowing himself to be carried by drunken driver]
C and D together
in D's car drank considerable amounts of beer in a pub. Whilst driving
home C did not wear a seat belt. D negligently caused an accident,
whereby C was injured.
Held: The
principle was recognised that a passenger can be held to have been
contributorily negligent if he rides with a driver who he knows has
consumer alcohol in such quantity as is likely to impair to a dangerous
degree that driver's capacity to drive properly and safely.
On the facts,
the passenger was found guilty of 20% contributory negligence.
|
|
Traynor v Donovan
[1978] Sheldon J |
[Remedies -
contributory negligence - not contributory if D's condition as a drunken
driver is not obvious]
C was a front
seat passenger in a car driven by D. She was not wearing a seat belt.
D was over the drink drive limit but this was not obvious to C.
Held: No
deduction for contributory negligence on the basis that the symptoms of
drunkenness on the facts would not necessarily have been apparent to a lay
person.
|
