I'm not sure about question 5. Can anyone explain this?
thanks.
A
Ashraaf·
A is the correct answer because of volenti non fit injuria. The persons are willing (volenti) when they play the game they know what tackles are allowed and what injuries might be caused playing a physical sport such as rugby. And because it also states in the question that the tackle was a fair and legal one the person injured can't claim remedies. IF it was an illegal move then maybe the referee option would've been true. But this is how I look at this. Hope it helped!
A
Ayesha·
Hello,
I am not sure about the answer of question 1.
I though that court has the power to reduce the extent of award to 100% Can some one help me to understand the point here.
Thanks
A
M
MikeLittleTutor·
In 1948, Lord Denning (who later became the chief judge in the Court of Appeal) reached the decision in the case Lavender v Diamints that, where a person has contributed to their own injury, the defendant should be excused all (100%) liability
Many subsequent cases have disputed the logic of Denning (including a number in the House of Lords [now re-named Supreme Court]) and it seems to me from reading learned articles on the subject of contributory negligence that the Courts are unwilling to exonerate completely the defendant
Thus I'm happy to stand by the question and answer as they appear in question 1 in the test
B
bakaplus2004·
Hi Iyesha,
The court can only reduce reduce the award up to 75% not %100.
Regards
Abu
M
MikeLittleTutor·
… which is what my previous post suggested. I believe that, in theory and following Denning, 100% is possible but, in practice, 75% appears to be the accepted limit
OK?
C
Chukwunonso·
Its between 10 and 75%
M
magictec·
Please to what extent can the court reduce the damages in a case of contributory negligence? I thought its between 10 and 100 percent.
Thank you
thanks.
I am not sure about the answer of question 1.
I though that court has the power to reduce the extent of award to 100% Can some one help me to understand the point here.
Thanks
A
Many subsequent cases have disputed the logic of Denning (including a number in the House of Lords [now re-named Supreme Court]) and it seems to me from reading learned articles on the subject of contributory negligence that the Courts are unwilling to exonerate completely the defendant
Thus I'm happy to stand by the question and answer as they appear in question 1 in the test
The court can only reduce reduce the award up to 75% not %100.
Regards
Abu
OK?
Thank you