Defences against Negligence
Defences Against Negligence
Negligence means failing to exercise reasonable care, resulting in damage or injury to another. However, a defendant in a negligence claim can raise certain defences to avoid or reduce liability. These defences aim to show that the defendant should not be held responsible for the plaintiff’s loss or that the plaintiff contributed to the harm.
1. Contributory Negligence
Definition:
This defence arises when the plaintiff (the injured party) has also failed to take reasonable care for their own safety, contributing to the accident or injury.
Key Points:
The plaintiff’s negligence must be a cause or contributor to the injury.
Even if the defendant was negligent, the plaintiff’s own carelessness can bar or reduce recovery.
If contributory negligence is proved, it may lead to complete denial of compensation (strict contributory negligence rule) or reduction of damages (in jurisdictions applying comparative negligence).
Case Law:
🔹 Butterfield v. Forrester (1809)
Facts: The plaintiff was riding a horse at high speed and did not see an obstruction (a pole) on the road placed by the defendant. The plaintiff was injured.
Held: The plaintiff’s own negligence in not keeping a proper lookout contributed to the accident. The court refused recovery because the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care.
Significance: This case established the principle of contributory negligence.
2. Voluntary Assumption of Risk (Volenti non fit injuria)
Definition:
If the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumes the risk of harm, they cannot later sue the defendant for negligence.
Key Points:
The plaintiff must have full knowledge of the risk.
The acceptance of risk must be voluntary and intentional.
It applies especially in dangerous activities where risk is obvious.
Case Law:
🔹 Morris v. Murray (1991)
Facts: The plaintiff voluntarily got into a plane with a drunken pilot and was injured in a crash.
Held: Since the plaintiff knowingly accepted the risk, the court held he could not recover damages.
Significance: Shows how voluntary assumption of risk works as a defence.
3. Inevitable Accident
Definition:
When an accident occurs despite all reasonable care being taken, it is called an inevitable accident. The defendant cannot be held liable if the injury was unavoidable.
Key Points:
The defendant must prove that the accident could not have been prevented even with reasonable care.
No negligence can be attributed if the incident was truly unavoidable.
Case Law:
🔹 Lumley v. Wagner (1852)
While this case is mostly about contract law, similar principles apply in negligence: where an accident is truly unavoidable, no liability is found.
A better example is the general principle recognized in negligence that if harm is caused by an inevitable accident, no liability arises.
4. Act of God (Force Majeure)
Definition:
A natural event (like a flood, earthquake, or lightning) that could not be anticipated or prevented by reasonable care can be a defence.
Key Points:
The event must be unforeseeable and irresistible.
The defendant must show that the damage was caused solely by the natural event, not their negligence.
Case Law:
🔹 Rickards v. Lothian (1913)
Facts: Water escaped from a building due to an unknown third party’s interference and caused damage.
Held: The defendant was liable because they did not take reasonable precautions.
Although this case shows liability, it also clarifies that if a natural event alone caused the damage without negligence, the defendant would not be liable.
5. Plaintiff’s Own Wrongful Act
If the plaintiff’s illegal or wrongful act contributed to the damage, the defendant may not be held liable.
Example:
If a trespasser is injured while unlawfully entering a property, the property owner might not be liable.
Case Law:
🔹 Woods v. Durable Suites Ltd. (1963)
Facts: Plaintiff trespassed and was injured.
Held: Defendant had no duty to the trespasser beyond avoiding willful harm.
This shows limitation on liability due to plaintiff’s wrongful act.
Summary Table of Defences Against Negligence
| Defence | Key Requirement | Effect | Case Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contributory Negligence | Plaintiff’s own negligence contributed | Denies or reduces liability | Butterfield v. Forrester |
| Voluntary Assumption of Risk | Plaintiff voluntarily accepted risk | Denies liability | Morris v. Murray |
| Inevitable Accident | Accident unavoidable despite care | No liability | Principle in general law |
| Act of God | Natural, unforeseeable event caused damage | No liability | Rickards v. Lothian (clarifies) |
| Plaintiff’s Wrongful Act | Plaintiff acted illegally or wrongfully | Limits defendant’s duty | Woods v. Durable Suites Ltd. |
Conclusion
Defences to negligence focus on proving that either the plaintiff contributed to the harm, knowingly accepted the risk, or that the injury was unavoidable despite the defendant’s reasonable care. These defences are crucial because negligence is a fault-based liability and is not absolute.
RELATED Blog
0 comments