Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 12 December 2002 14:29:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Gemma Moat Hello im doing a work experience adn i have been tasked to find out 'What is the deffence against a claim of neglegance could someone please help me?
Admin  
#2 Posted : 12 December 2002 16:40:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Bill Elliott Gemma - My you do get some questions! - the defences are: That there was no duty of care owed that there was no breach of duty the damage, loss or injury did not result from a breach of duty that it was not foreseeable that the injured party should take the risk upon themselves (volenti non fit injuria) that there was contributory negligence by others Hope that is helpful. Regards
Admin  
#3 Posted : 13 December 2002 10:10:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis Gemma Bill has said it all but his definition of Volenti Non Fit Injuria is a bit out - the sense is that the plaintiff voluntarily took the risk upon themselves knowing the dangers - This is very difficult to sustain in the area of employment and there have been very few defences based on this and it is a long time since one succeeded, in my memory at least. The basis of Bill's response rests in the threefold test for negligence A) The defendant owed the plaintiff a Duty of Care B) The defendant was in breach of that duty C) Injury arose as a result of that breach All three must be satisfied for there to be a successful claim. If the case rests on a breach of statutory duty then the injury test is generally easier to show and harder to disprove. You sound to have a very active supervisor who is determined to provide opportunities Bob
Admin  
#4 Posted : 13 December 2002 10:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By P Hocking Just to follow on from Bill's posting, you may want to look into particular cases of Volenti non fit injuria. I would suggest that you look at Imperial Chemical industries Ltd v. Shatwell where the term vnfi was a complete defence where two fellow servants combined to disobey an order deliberately though they new the risk involved. It was also appliedby Cantley J. in Bolt v. Willaim Moss & Sons Ltd. Paul
Admin  
#5 Posted : 13 December 2002 14:47:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith Another defence is that of laches i.e. the principal of vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt. In English (the law will not help those who sleep on their rights). See the Time Limitation Act 1980
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.