8/10/2019 Defenses in Negligence

1/3

Defenses in Negligence

Step 1: Defense of Contributory Negligencedamages are apportioned

Where [P] suffers damage partly as a result of his own fault & partly due

to the Ds fault, claim in respect of the damages is not defeated by reasonof the Ps fault but damages recoverable are reduced to such an extent ascourt thinks just and equitable, (LARCO CAP 23 s.21 (1))

#1 D#2 Standard of Care for P: A person is guilty of CN if he ought reasonably

to foresee that, if he did not act as a reasonable prudent man, he migt hurthimself; and in his reckonings he must take into account the possibility ofothers being careless (Jones v Luvox Quarries Ltd [1952])

I. ProfessionalsP must conform to standard of an average man

of his profession.Wheeler v Copas[1981]

P (bricklayer) borrowed ladder from farmerfell whilecarrying heavy things on it 50% reduction: professional bricklayer should

know ladder not safe for carrying heavy things

Chan King Wan &Anor v HonestScaffold GeneralContractor Co Ltd &

Anor (No 2) [2000]

2 scaffolder died when partly constructed scaffold outsidea bay window detacheddanger faced was too obvious -court held P (deceased) liable for contributory 40% reduction for joint liability (Ps), D2 liable for

60%

Hondon

Development Ltd &Anor v Powerwiseinvestments Ltd &Ors [2006]

P (purchaser) failed to alert Ds (solicitors) about

difference between provisional sale & purchased &formal agreement. P bought land of lesser value & suedD. Solicitors pleaded contributory negligence for D nottelling them. CN failed because even if D alerted P, no

difference either way.

II. Childrenwhere child P is concerned, the degree of carereasonably expected of him is that of child in his situation (Lynch vNurdin (1841))

Wong Shek Hung vPentecostal Lam Hon

Kwong School [2001]

Ps figure was injured when she tried to slow the speed ofthe spring door by slipping her finger on the edge

spring door malfunctioned & closed rapidly No CN because childs young age Malfunction door: does not cost much to avoid

injury

Ho Kwai Loy v LeungTin Hong & Anor[1978]

P (6 years old boy) ran in response of a call from hersister - ran out behind a parked car got knocked down byoncoming vehicle No CN because it depends on whether in that

8/10/2019 Defenses in Negligence

2/3

8/10/2019 Defenses in Negligence

3/3

HKCU 2524 P should bear 30% of liability.

V. Car Passenger: act of not wearing a seatbelt or a helmet isunreasonable, hence, considered as acting below the reasonablestandard of care

#3 Causation `