Introduction

In contributory negligence there is a duty to mitigate your damages but there is also a duty to take positive action like putting out a fire.

This case is not relevant to our case as its principal is the duty of care of the neighbour, but it is one of the famous cases.

Open Statement

The fact that none of the plaintiffs was wearing a safety belt is not of itself indicative of the innocence of the defendant. However, it will be a factor in assessing contributory negligence under the Civil Liabilities Act 1961.

• David owed a duty of care to the defendants and that he was in breach of that particular duty of care to each of the three plaintiffs.
• David will argue that he was and couldn’t have foreseen that the cyclist was coming.

The Supreme Court in Buckley v Maloney (1996) funds the driver of a car negligent where he had collided with a cyclist who had come into the road from the hard shoulder to avoid some potholes.

 

• Did David act reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances?
• Was he keeping his eyes on the mirror to see if there was oncoming traffic, including cyclist on the left-hand side?

Closing Statement

David will deny that he breaches his duty of care that’’ among other things “it was an inevitable accident. Also, can argue that injuries could have been avoided if plaintiffs were wearing seat belts. Since the injury did not manifest themselves until sometimes later the probability is that the injuries were only minor and could have been avoided or less substantially mitigated using safety belt. As passengers, if all over 18th they responsible for their care, but this will not discharge David from his reasonable care.

In 1993 the high Court held in Strick v Tracy that the defendant failure to wear a safety belt she had contributed significantly to the seriousness of her injuries.

Remedies:

• Injunction
• Damages
• Cost

Conclusion

In similar cases to the one mentioned above, what remains clear is that there are still many more cases of accidents, injuries and loss of property which is ascribed to the non-use or the use of safety belts while driving. Contributory negligence is evidently a kind of defense where the defendant is presented with a chance to show some negligence on the side of the plaintiff. Showing negligence on the part of plaintiff by the defendant in contributory negligence is for the purpose of reduction in the amount that should be paid as compensation because of the extent of negligence from the plaintiff. It is evident that contributory negligence acts as a fair defense for defendants who are out to find instances that they can use against the plaintiff especially in cases that are related to specific torts like the one discussed above. Because this kind of defense has favored defendants in many tort and business law cases, the very last opportunity in using this defense was brought in that between the plaintiff and the defendant, whoever had the last chance to inhibit an accident was to be held liable. However, contributory negligence is still a sophisticated indebtedness of scientific evidence in the tort law.

References:

Corporate and Business Law (Irish Variant 2012) BPP (Law of Tort pg:109-131)

Law of Torts 4th Edition B McMahon W Binchy (Negligence of the Road pg:15-40,15-58)