TORTS FLOWCHARTS

1. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IICONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE II
ELEMENTS OF
CONTRIBUTORY
Foresee ability
P is libale for contributory
negligence if he reasonably
foresee that
If he did not act as a reasonable
man ,he might hurt himself.
Jones v Livox Quarries
(P rid at the back of a
traxcavator which is against the
intsruction. A dumber traveling
behind trax collided it and P
injured.P C.N. the above
quotation was held.
Causation
The word `result’ in the section refers
to causation.
Jones v Livox Quaries
What was the cause of the
damage.Was P contributed partly to his
damage.
Stapley v Gypsum Mines
The question of causation to be
determined by applying common sense
to the fact of each case.
Froom v Butcher
The q is not what was the cause of
accident but what was the cause of
damage.
P`s conduct which is
C.Negligence
Act against
order/instruction
l.Jones v Livox
Quaries(riding at back
of traxcavator)
2.Stapley v Gypsum
Mines(Dcd. Knew the
roof of the mine was
dummy yet wnt on work
against the instruction.)
Not wearing crash helmet
l. O`connell v Jackson(although D
negligence for accident but P C.N. to
his injury for not wearing helmet.)
2.Wong Ah Gan v Chan Swei Yueh &
anor(P is not C.N. bocox not wearing
helmet unless P foresee it might
cause injury)
Chan Loo Khee v Lai Siew San
& anor
(parking car with light on at highway
not C.N.
Yeo Lian Hwa v The Hock Lee
Amalgamated Bus Co. Boarding
into a moving bus C.N.
Wong Mun Kong v Pacific &
Driver Drunken
Owen v Brimmell
If P a passenger knew the
driver was drunk with such
quantity which might danger P
is C.N.
Low Kwan Moi v Ramli &
Ors & Govt of M`sia
Conduct in the agony
of the moment
If D`s negligence put P in delima
and P choose a course of
conduct which prove to be
wrong, D cannot escape liability
provided
i.P acted in reasonable
aprehension of danger
ii.Method used must be
reasonable one.
Jones v Boyce
(Due to D`s negligence a coach
break and uncontrol.P jumped
to escape but injured.Not C.N.)
British School of Motoring
Ltd. V Simms & anor
(the act of stopping a test car by
the examiner was held
Act of Infant/Children
If the child is very young no C.N.
but if older Child then there is a
contributory negligence if he fails
to exercise below the standard of
care of a child of his own age.
Lynch v Nurdin
(7 yr child who climb on the back
of a unattended horse and cart no
C.N.)
Gough v Thorne
(13 ½ yr girl together with her
brothers cross the road after the
lorry driver signal to do so. A car
came from behind the lorry and
knock her.
P no C.N. becox if a child at that
age persuaded to cross,will do
so).
Symes v Ling Ngan Ngien (a
child left in the car by her
mother.The child then came out
and cross the road and
knocked.No C.N.
Jag Sing v Tong Fong
Omnibus Co.( 7 yr old infant
while waiting for bus surged into
the roadway and knock by he
bus.C.N. liable)
Tay Siew Goh v Tay Tien
Soo
(12y girl alighten from bus quickly
Workman Contributory
Negligence
Flower v Ebbw Vale Steel, Iron
& Coal Co.
l.The test is what an ordinary
workman in the circumstances could
have done.
2. Caswell v Powerll Duffryn
Associated Collieries Ltd.
If there is any stautory provision
which is to protect a wroker than
must comply it.Failure to do so is
C.N.
3.Jayes v Imi (Kynoch) Ltd. A
workman put his hand inside a
machine and cut his finger.Held
100% C.N. and he get nothing)Apportionment of
Damages
s. 12(1) CLA states that ct must
apportion damages on the basis of
just and equitable.It is a question of
fact.
i. the gravity of risk assumed by the
claimant is an imprtant
factor.Helson v Mckenzies Ltd-P
lost her handbag contain huge
money.A sales assitant hande over
to P and found missing. Held P
contributed more to the negligence.
Fitzgerald v Lane
The issue of C.N. on the part of P
should be kept separate from the
determination of Contribution
between joint tortfeasor.
Eg.If (D1) contribute 70%
(D2) contribute 30%
(P) Contribute 30%
100% - 30% = 70%
That 70% divide between both Dl
70% and D2 30%