contributory negligence

• the defendent could use the defence of contributory negligence under s1(1) of the law reform act 1945. it is a partial defence that can reduce the compensation owed by the defendent.
• firstly, it must be proven that the claiment failed to take proper care in the circumstances for there own safety. this means that the claiment must have fallen below the standared expected of a reasonable person in that position
• the standard is variable and all circumstance are taken into account. for example in Barrett v Minestry of defence, it was held that Barrett contributed to his death by excessively drinking. children are unlikly to be found to have failed to take prope care, for example in Gough v Thorns, the claiment acted as the reasonable 13 year old girl would have, therefore there was no contributory negligence.
• secondly it must be proven that the failure to take care was a contributory cause of the damaged suffered. this means that the failure to take care was a contributory cause to the damage suffered as opposed to causing the incident that resulted in the damage. for example, failure to wear a seatbelt contributes to the claiments injuries and exposing oneself to danger (Davies v Swan Motor)
• if succesful the compensation awareded to the claiment will be reduced by the amount the judge believes they have contributed to their injuries