CAUSATION AS GENERAL

1. Duty of care - must prove there exists a duty of care on DF

2. Breach of duty of care - duty was not duly performed and breached ;
omission/commission of the DF
3. Damage - occurred and suffered by PF sebab DF’s breach

CAUSATION MUST PASSED TWO TEST

1) CAUSATION IN FACT
- Whether or not DF’s conduct has caused damage suffered by PF
- Whether or not the damage would not have happened but for (if not caused) the
DF’s breach of duty
- Whether the injury is caused by a third party? (klu bukan third party, salah DF)

REQUIREMENT FOR CAUSATION

- Tak cukup untuk just prove/establish existence of breach of duty AND existence of
damage
- Tapi, PF kena tunjukkan CAUSAL LINK antara dua2 breach tu
- Causal link mesti present, unbroken and not too remote
- Senang cerita, kena buktikan yang negligent act or omission dari DF tu memang
was the EFFECTIVE CAUSE of the injury and damage suffered by plaintiff. Memang
100%, fix no doubt dari DF’s negligent.

But for test

- To establish causal link, PF kena buktikan injury tu takkan berlaku BUT FOR DF’s
breach of duty
- Dalam kata lain, kalau DF tak breach, 100% injury tu takkan berlaku
- Kalau injury tu still berlaku regardless DF’s breach ke tak, then tkde causal link and
DF is not liable

DIFFICULTIES IN APPLYING THE TEST

- Test tu tak complete/ comprehensive untuk causation sebab dia tak selalu capable of
revealing sama ada DF’s act memang the cause of PF’s damage.
- So the causation rule extended to
I. Simultaneous events - berlaku serentak
II. Several successive cause - berlaku berturut2
III. Multiple causes - banyak penyebab

2) CAUSATION IN LAW
- Whether or not it is reasonably foreseeable that the DF’s conduct will result in
damage/injury to PF
- Whether or not the damage is too remote?
- DF is not liable for damage which is too remote
REMOTENESS - reasonable foresight test
- Reasonable foreseeability of injury : PF kena prove type of damage suffered was
reasonable
I. Manner of occurrence
II. Extent of harm
- DF hanya kena nampak the injury would occur, dia tak perlu foreseen macam mana
the injury will occur, cukup sekadar dia tau injury tu akan berlaku

- Maxim : a tortfeasor must take his victim as he finds him

I. Eggshell Skull Rule : the person's skull is very thin due to his health condition.
- Contoh, kalau a person gets into an accident disebabkan kecuaian
orang lain, the person will be liable for the actual damage wlaupun
kalau berlaku kat orang lain, damage tu takdelah teruk sangat tapi
disebabkan dia ada thin skull, the damage jadi severe. So liable ler

DAMAGE WAS TOO REMOTE / novus actus interveniens (new intervening act)
I. Plaintiff - resulting from PF’s own action
II. Third party
III. Natural event
The Wagon Mound - DF carelessly buang minyak dari kapal dia, The
(No1) Wagon Mound, dalam Sydney Harbor
- Sebabkan angin and air pasang (tide) masatu, it
carried the oil sampai PF punya wraft dimana
bawah pF punya wraft tu, dorang buat keje2
welding
- Lepas being advised, dorang diberitahu they could
still continue the weld, so dorang pun sambung
kerja
- 60 jam pastu, some sisa molten metal cair
terapung atas minyak tu pastu menyebabkan
terbakaq
- Kebakaran tu was develop quickly and turn to large
fire which severely damaged the wharf
- Held : damage to the wharf by the pollution of PF
slipways was reasonable, tapi damage fire tu not
foreseeable
- Untuk cover damages, PF kena prove kan jenis
damage suffered was foreseeable [not too
remoteness]

Gov of Malaysia v - FC cakap injury sustained drpd student was not the
Jumat b Mahmud kind/ type of class reasonable foresee as a result
of teacher’s act/commission
- So damage to was considered as too remote

Hughs v Lord - Post Office employees tinggalkan a manhole open

Advocate covered dengan shelter canvas
- Dorang letak warning dgn parafin lamps around the
hole
- PF, budak 8 tahun amik satu lampu dan buat main
sampai terjatuh dalam lubang tu
- A violent explosion dan PF cedera.
- Argued that the lamp exploded was unpredictable
- Held : the resulting damage, takkan jadi lagi teruk
atau berbeza bila lamp tu spilled. Maksudnya
kebakaran still akan berlaku
- D liable

Vacwell Engineering - DF supplied chemical kat PF tapi carelessly gagal

Co. Ltd. v BDH untuk bagitau chemical tu akan meletup kalau in
Chemicals Ltd contact dengan ayak
- PF’s employees pun pi letak consignment of
chemical tu dalam sink
- Pastu menyebabkan violent explosions and
extensive damage
- Held: D liable sbb dia boleh foresee damage tu
would occur walaupun dia tak sangka yg extent of
damage boleh sampai lagu tu sekali

Duliue v White Sons - DF liable sebab buat PF terkejut dan

menyebabkan dia deliver pra-matang baby.
Eggskull shell rule applied
Smith v Leech Brain - PF burns his lips during work sebab kecuaian
& Co Ltd coworker dia (DF).
- Sebabkan dia ada masalah skin tissue condition,
injury burn tu was found as promoting agent yg
buatkan dia ada cancer which killed him 3 years
later
- DF liable sbb death

Mckew v Holland & - PF kadang hilang control of his left leg sebab injury
Hannen & Cubitts suffered due to DF negligent
(scotland) ltd - Pastu plak dia nak turun tangga yang licin
(descended a steep flight of steps) tapi sebab kaki
kiri dia tengah sakit and sedang recover
sebenarnya, dia turun jugak tangga tu dengan kaki
kanan dia
- End up dia jatuh and broke the leg (left with
disability)
- Held : while DF liable for the initial injury, the
complainant new action was novus actus
interveniens that broke the chain of causation
- Lord Reid cakap an injured man should act
reasonably and carefully in his recovery. Trying to
descend steep steps unaided with the possibility of
his leg giving way was an example of
unreasonable behaviour.

Wieland v Cyril Lord - Sama jugak jatuh tangga dasar bebal dah tahu
Carpets Ltd injured pi main tangga unaided wat pa

Knighley v Johns - DF1 caused accident kat exit one-way tunnel

- DF2 (police traffic) lupa nak seal the tunnel
properly so pi suruh PF (police 2) untuk tutup
tunnel tu. nak dijadikan cerita, PF went in againts
the flow of the tunnel (sbb tunnel tu kan one-way)
- PF plak collided dgn kete lain pastu injured
- PF saman D1 and D2 sbb negligent
- Held: DF2 liable. DF1 tak liable sbb intervening/
campur tangan act of D2

Carslogie Steamship - DF negligent caused damaged to PF/s ship

Co Ltd v Royal - Masa otw nak repair ship tu, ship suffered damage
Norwegian lagi sebab violent storm
Government - Held : DF tak liable sebab damage caused by
storm. Storm tu unforeseeable intervening act,
takde kena mengena dengan DF negligence
CAUSATION IN FACT
Barnett v Chelsea Hospital
Management Committee
Hasan bin Datolah v
Kerajaan Malaysia
Guan Soon Tin Mining Co v
Wong Fook Kum
Fitzgerald v Lane
Jobling v Assosiated Dairies
Ltd
Wilsher v Essex Health
Authority
- Deceased pi DF’s hospital sebab sakit perut and
muntah2 lepas minum tea pastu nurse pun call
doctor tapi doctor tu taknak examine si mati and
suruh dia balik untreated
- Dia mati 5 jam lepastu sebab arsenic poisoning
- Wife si mati (PF) saman DF
- Held; patient still akan mati wlaupun proper
treatment had been given so DF tak liable
- PF operated oleh one of DF’s doctors who
negligently damaged his spinal and resulting in
paralysis.
- PF argued yg paralysis tu memang sebab doctor’s
negligence dalam operation tu
- Held: berdasarkan evidence, court satisfied dgn
initial finding dimana injury suffered bukan sebab
doctor’s negligence time perform surgery tapi
sebab the result of delayed treatment so claim PF
failed sebab absence in causation
- Kematian ikan2 PF mungkin sebb DF negligence
in discharging of tailing mcam poison, epidemic
and other pollutants
- Held; D tak negligent sebab KEMUNGKINAN is
not enough. Tkde bukti yang the discharge from
DF’s mine ada kena mengena dengan kematian
ikan2 PF
- PF negligently lintas jalan pastu DF1 kereta
langgar and tercampak across the road where
DF2 lalu in opposite direction and langgar dia lagi
sekali.
- Held’ BUT FOR test tackle apply sebab
simultaneous events dimana dedua DF contribute
the injury
- So dedua DF liable tapi reduce damage sebab PF
pun salah
- PF terjatuh time kerja and injured sebab
employer’s negligence.
- 4 tahun kemudian discovered yang dia ada
pre-existing spinal disease unrelated to his
accident yang membuatkan dia jadi takle berkerja
langsung
- DF liable untuk bayar 4 tahun yang dia hilang
earning that is start dari DF negligence sampai la
dia jadi totaly unfit to work
- PF born prematurely kat DF’s hospital
- DF plak negligent pi bagi oxygen yg berlebihan
- The catherer was dua kali inserted dalam vein dia
instead of artery so PF develop incurable eye
 condition
- Held; his blindness boleh jadi sebab factor
prematang dia which the hospital admitted that the
negligence was just one.
- PF claim failed tapi appeal so DF plak liable sebab
a junior dr was expected to owes same standard
of care macam professional doctor
ECONOMIC LOSS

- Pecuniary or financial loss, consequential and pure

I. Consequential economic loss - as a result of physical injuries or damage to
property
II. Pure economic loss - other losses that follow which do not flow from the
damage . contoh bapak (the only person yg kerja) kena tanggung family tapi
accident and mati so jadi loss dkt ahli family dia

- Economic loss is recoverable under MY jurisprudence in negligence and nuisance

- All major commonwealth jurisdiction recognize that pure economic loss is
recoverable in negligence
- Dalan English law, general duty of care test dalam Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman
is applicable to all negligence claims, inc claims of pure economic loss

When not recoverable?

I. Loss resulting from damage to property owned by third party - damage to harta third
party
II. Loss due to defective product - loss sbb product yang dah memang rosak

When recoverable? - when there is ‘special relationship’

I. Loss caused by negligent misstatement
II. Loss caused by negligent provision services

Special relationship
- Where DF is in the business of giving advise/info
- Tapi dalam Smith v Eric S.Bush, DF still akan liable wlaupun takde business. Asalkan
dia tau yang advise dia tu orang akan relied on
Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v
Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd
Cattle v Stockton Waterworks
Co
Murphy v Brentwood District
Council
Hedley Byrne & co ltd v Heller &
Partners Ltd
- PF ada kilang besi which obtained electricity by a
direct cable from the power station
- DF buat kerja kat tanah guna excavator (mesin
jengkaut) and negligently damaged cable
- so, kilang tu takdak elektrik for 15 hours yang
menyebabkan physical damage to the factory’s
furnaces and mental, loss profit atas damage metal
dan loss profit atas metal yang takle dicarikan masa
takda elektrik
- held : first two damage were allowed sebab memang
consequent upon the physical damage (cable rosak) to
PF property
- tapi third damage takle sebab PF takle cairkan
furnace tu bukan consequent of physical damage to
the property.
- PF contracted untuk build tunnel under the
embarkment of mr X
- DF plak negligent menyebabkan flood dekat
embankment tu and sekeliling tanah mr X yang
membuatkan PF takle buat kerja dia so dia loss
profit in the performance of his work to mr X
- PF sued DF
- Held: court disallowed the claim sbb pure
economic loss
- CL (owner rumah) suffered kerugian lepas jual
dia punya defective house bawah harga market
(DF yg deal)
- CL saman DF sebab kerugian and expenses
incurred in moving into a new house
- Held: court bagi claim cost of repairing the
defective building tapi not for the loss for
abandoning the premise
- DF bagi reference to CL regarding financial
responsibility of a customer and expect CL to
act on it
- DF replied dalam surat “without responsibility
on the part of this bank”
- CL relied on the advise and suffered loss for
euro 17,000
- CL saman sebab negligent in giving the
information and misleading
- DF argued ckap takdak duty of care
- Held: court cakap ikutkan orang yang bijak
dalam satu area ni memang orang yg mintak
advise tu akan relied on sebab dia tau orang tu
pandai (when there is special relationship with
reliance)
- Tapi disebabkan ada disclaimer of
responsibility, such duty was implied
- CL kalah
RES IPSA LOQUITUR

- The thing speaks for itself (the facts)

- Not rule of substantive law but rule of evidence
- Affecting the onus of proof-premised on common sense, fair play and justice
- To be raised by PF in negligence and nuisance cases
Per in, David Chelliah v Monorail Malaysia

Effects of the rule

- Wqdj

Elements under RIL

- The things was under the control of DF
- In the ordinary course of business, it does not usually happen unless with negligence
- dalam situasi biasa, takkan berlaku kecual sebab negligent
- Absence/ lack of explanation from DF - DF pun jem nak explain canne benda tu jadi

Scott v London and St
Katherine Docks co
- PF was injured by some sugar bags falling on him
in DF’s warehouse
- What to be shown is dalam management dia tu is
kejadian tu jarang or tak pernah berlaku kalau
managemant guna proper care
- It affords reasonable evidence in the absence of
explanation by the DF

David Chelliah v Monorail - Incident jadi time test run involving 13.4kg safety
Malaysia wheel jatuh dari train and hit orang dkt pejalan kaki
yang jalan bawah monorail
- Victim tu seorang wartawan and kena masuk
hospital
- Dia filed RM5 juta bapak banyak for negligence
towards semua party yg ada kena mengena dari
orang yg design, orang yang install, orang yang
operate train tu sampai lah ke director-general of
railways.
- Held: a safety wheel biasanya dalam ordinary
course takkan jatuh and hit a person. Time tu pun
the safety wheel was under the control of DF
- Walaupun PF could point tayar tu jatuh kat dia tapi
dia pun jem canne nak explain tayar tu jatuh. So
dalam case ni PF dah tunjukkan RIP PASTU jadi
penting untuk DF untuk provide clear evidence that
kejadian tu berlaku w/o negligence
- Failure to do so will establish liability to DF
- Last2 DF liable sebab the bolts were not sufficiently
tightened by the employed of the DF
- Basic rule is for the plaintiff to prove negligence
and bukan untuk DF untuk disapprove it
- Cause hardship untuk PF kalau it impossible for
 him to know exactly how the incident happen which
led to the damage

Lembaga Kemajuan Tanah - CL engaged contractor untuk bersihkan/merumput

Persekutuan v Mariam (weed) and maintankan tanah dkt pahang.
- Pastu unknown to CL, contractor tu sub-contractor
kerja tu dekat orang lain.
- Workers sub-contractor tu build a kongsi house
atas land scheme tu
- Rumah tu runtuh menyebabkan kematian
employee sub-contractor. Deceased’s dependants
tu saman felda tapi felda denied cakap dorang
tktau kerja tu bagi kat orang lain
- Held: rumah tu taktau sebab apa runtuh and
takdak proper explanation dari felda so apply RIP
and rupanya rumah tu unsafe bcs FELDA kan
owner tanah tu so dia mesti tau tanah tu tak sesuai
untuk buat kongsi house
- Felda liable
NERVOUS SHOCK
Def: used to mean to the occurrence of psychiatric illness or injury caused to an
individual by events which have occurred due to the negligence of another person
- Psychiatric illness or injury
- Nature: mesti sebab Emotional or mental nature
● CL kena demonstrate on the basis of medical evidence, yang dorang
memang suffered recognisable psychiatric condition
● Claim diatas selalu occur bila individual suffers a reaction sebab witnessing
an accident yang berlaku antara kenalan terdekat dia mcam relative or
person dia shayangg
- Victim: primary and secondary
● PRIMARY : orang yg directly involves dalam accident tu, who was
ACTUALLY exposed to the risk of physical injury. MEMANG DIA YANG
HADAP, DIA LAH ORANG YANG 100% ADA RISK UNTUK CEDERA
● Secondary : those yang cuma witness (saw/heard) accident tu
- Legal requirement
I. Medically recognised illness
● on a painful event dimana outside the range of normal human
experience
● Menyebabkan dia preoccupation with the intrusive memories
● Effect dia sleep difficulty, outburst of anger, problems with memory or
concentration, overreaction to any reminder of the event
II. Foreseeability
● Relationship - ada relay antara PF and victim accident
● Proximity - physical proximity antara P dengan scene accident
(memang dia ada kena mengena/ ada kat tempat kejadian antara P
dgn tempat kejadian)
● Means caused - PF mesti tengok event tu atau immediate after event
tu with his own senses/unaided
III. Relationship
IV. Physical proximity
● Kalau nampak news dari tv, it does not satisfy the proximity test sebab
DF selalunya akan expect current tv broadcast guidelines takkan bagi
tunjukkan shocking pictures of individual’s suffering or dying
V. Means of witness

- The illness mestilah dikenali as genuine psychiatric disorder

- Contoh illness yg fall within this definition
I. Post-traumatic stress disorder
II. Depressive disorder
III. Adjustment disorders
IV. Anxiety disorders
- Apa yg bukan contoh illness jatuh dalam definition ni?
I. Anguish
II. Mental distress
III. Menghadapi kesukaran untuk adapt
dgn hidup baru
Current position
 - Psychiatric injury or ilness tak semestinya require ‘shock’ element
- breakdown
Thiruvannamali a/l
Alagirisami Pillai v
Diners Club
Page v Smith
Deliu v White
Hambrook v Stokes
Bros
King v Phillips
Zainah bte Ismail v
- Sebab DF’s mistaken PF’s wife dapat surat kematian
suami dia (letter of condolence)
- PF saman sebab shock, fear and mental anguish
- Held: court sedar PF’s anger and discomfort tapi court
denied the claim sebab ordinary emotions of anxiety tak
recoverable
- CL tengah drive pastu tetiba DF belok kanan masuk lane
CL yang mencetuskan accident dimana kedua2 kereta
were damage tapi all victim ok je takda cedera apa apa
- However, CL memang dah suffered from a chronic fatigue
syndrome yang muncul (manifested) sendiri dari semasa
ke semasa
- Held: court cakap shock daripada incident tu, its reactivate
this condition dimana ada kemungkinan jadi permanent
and menyebabkan CL takboleh kerja dah
- CL awarded the damages tapi DF appealed
- Appeal court allowed the claim of DF sebab psychiatric
injury was not a foreseeable consequence of the accident.
Dia tak sangka accident tu boleh hidupkan balik penyakit
lama CL.
- TAPI untuk liable : tak penting untuk prove kan sama ada
injury tu physical or psychiatric injury, cukup sekadar dia
tahu injury tu foreseeable then dia akan liable
- whether the defendant could reasonably foresee that his
conduct would expose the claimant to the risk of personal
injury, whether physical or psychiatric.CL menang
- DF negligence menyebabkan van langgar and break a
wall of a public horse dimana waktu tu PF was standing
behind a bar sambil serve drinks
- Held: court allowed PF claim for psychiatric injury bila dia
dalam keadaan yang takut lepas nampak incident tu yang
menyebabkan physical injury to herself, yang membawa
kepada miscarriage
- Court allowed damages untuk a mother yang terkejut
lepaas nampak dengan mata dia sendiri a runaway lorry
rolling down a steep street ke arah anak dia yang baru
lintas jalan
- The shock of witnessing this event produced a psychiatric
reaction dimana DF was liable
- PF dengar anak dia menjerit so dia tengok kat tingkap to
see what happened pastu dia nampak anak dia punya
tricycle crushed bawah taxi
- PF saman on ketakutan of anak dia injured
- Court refused the claim sebab a cab driver cannot
reasonably be expected to have foreseen that his slow
backing would terrify a mother 70 yards awal
- Negligent lorry bawak laju and bunuh PF’s daughter yang
Marimuthu tengah basuh baju dekat tepi paip depan rumah tepi street
and menyebabkan PF suffered shock walaupun dah 2
tahun berlalu
- - court awarded damages for the shock and rejected the
issue of remoteness [RELATIONSHIP]

Mcloughin v O’Brian - PF kat rumah pastu dapat berita dari jiran yang husband
and 3 orang anak dia accident 2 jam awal
- PF then di bawa ke hospital and nampak family dia in
distressing condition and diberitahu bahawa anak
perempuan mati
- These event buatkan dia suffered psychiatric illness
- Court allowed the claim. Wlaupun dia takda kat tempat
kejadian tapi dia datang as soon as the aftermath of the
incident.
- The shock must come through sight or hearing of the
event atau its immediate aftermath

Chadwick v British - PF tolong train accident victims

Transport - The scene of people suffering menyebabkan PF suffered
Commission psychiatric illness
- Court allowed the claim and DF held negligent sebab it is
foreseeable that orng yang try to help memang akan suffer
from shock

Bourhill v Young - Selalunya pemerhati (bystander) yang unconnected with

the victims takkan dapat claim for nervous shock.
- Tapi kalau situasi disaster tu happen sangat close dengan
dia, he may be able to recover

Walker v - CL employed by DF, was under excessive workload and

Northumberland CC selalu hadap mental breakdown.
- Dia then amik 4 months leave pastu lepas dia naik kerja tu
dia kena deal balik dengan kerja kerja lepas whilst
sebenarnya he was expecting naik cuti tu dia dapat lah
case baru so consequent ni menyebbkan dia hadap
second breakdown
- Court held that DF owed duty of care. Sebab bila CL naik
cuti after his breakdown, possibility untuk dia hadap balik
breakdown tu was foreseeable sebab CL was exposed to
the same workload so memang foreseeable kepada DF
yang PF akan suffer psychiatric illness.

Johnstone v - A junior dr had a breakdown lepas kena kerja dkt DF’s

Bloomsbury HA hospital dengan waktu bekerja yang berlebihan tanpa
rehat. Dalam contract employment, waktu bekerja dia
standard 40 jam seminggu tapi dengan tambahan he
would be available on call for a further 47 hours a week
- Tapi in some week, dia kena bekerja 100 jam dengan
inadequate period of sleep menyebabkan dia suffered
depression and suicidal feelings
- Held: DF owed duty of care untuk mengelakkan his
foreseeable [psychiatric injuries
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENT
- S 12(1) CIVIL LAW ACT 1956

Elements
- Foreseeablity
- Causation

Test untuk contributory negligence dalam case pejalan kaki bukan sama ada dia dibawah
duty of care towards DF tapi sama ada dia acting as a reasonable man with reasonable care

- What was done in an agony moment cannot be fairly treated as negligence

Ong Ah long v - DF must show PF did not tunjukkan interest untuk take
DR. S. reasonable care of himself and contributed dengan his own
Underwood injury
- AP bawak van lepastu terlanggar CL siku kiri while dia tengah
berjalan tepi kereta dia in a street in Ipoh
- AP argued cakap dia yang keluarkan elbow dia dulu sebelum
accident tu
- Held : AP dituduh sebab gagal untuk pay attention to
keberadaan of other road users
- Pastu AP tu plak dibukti dengan gagal memberi ruang antara
van dia tu untuk membenarkan orang lain lalu dengan selamat
- Pastu AP gagal untuk buktikan yang CL tak tunjukkan interest
untuk take reasonable care of himself and sengaja cederekan
diri

Jones v Livox - CN requires the foreseeability of harm to oneself

Quarries - Seseorang tu akan guilty of contributory negligence kalau dia
perlu reasonably to have foreseen that, kalau dia tak act as a
reasonable person, dia akan hurt diri sndiri and dia kena amik
tahu the possibility of others being careless.

Foo Kok Foo v - PF memang ada contributory negligence sebab sengaja

Yap Hai Chwee keluarkan left arm dia outside the window

Siti Rohaini bt - No contributory negligence sbab wlaupun PF bawak motor

Mohd Shah v tanpa helmet and takda valid lesen
Haji Zainal bin
Saifee

Choh Nyee Ngah - Si mati tak CN sebab he was in agony between nak stay dalam
v Syarikat lorry driver’s seat atau lompat keluar lorry
Beruntong S/B

Syarizan B - First PF buat u-turn and bawak laju in an attempt to escape

Sudirman & ORS from police
v Abdul Rahman - First DF (police) kejar PF lepas PF bawak laju
Bin Bukit & ORS - Bila DF dapat kejar PF, dia kicked motor PF menyebabkan PF
hilang kawalan and crashed
- PF injured and became a wheel-chair bound
- Pastu PF claim yang lepas crash tu DF severely assaulted and
 stabbed him as he lay on the road
- Held: the DF act of kicking PF (15tahun) untuk prevent dia dari
lari sebab breach of traffic regulations was unjustified,
unacceptable and unlawful
- Tapi court juga dpt tahun yang PF pun contributed to the
damage he suffered so the damage have to be reduced sebab
PF pun ada responsibility for the damage
- Liability, 75% on DF and 25% contributory on PF atas dia tak
amik berat on his reasonable care for his own safety and
failure to wear a crash helmet has contributed to his head
injuries.

Kalokerinos v - Failing to attend follow up / recommended appointments

Burnett - PF consulted her GP who nasihatkan dia untuk datang balik
kalau dia still suffer bleeding tapi failed to arrange an
alternative referral to a specialist
- PF condition jadi makin teruk tapi dia tak jumpa GP dia tu for 4
months, pastu later was diagnosed cervical cancer
GENERAL DEFENCES
● “No wrong is done to one who consent
● Consent may be implied by conduct or expressed verbally
● Elements of VNFI
1. Mere knowledge does not imply consent
2. Consent inapplicable in rescue cases
3. Consent of children and disabled people are not 100% valid
- The first two are essential
● VNFI scenario
- employment/workman cases
- Driver-passenger cases
- Sport cases
- Rescue cases
● Requirement to prove VNFI
- PF knows about the risk
- PF consents to such risk
● Consent in sport
- Applies untuk injury yang wujud dan selalu terjadi dalam situasi biasa ketika
sport dibawah rules nya.
- Apply to everyone yang involve, contohnya sportsman, officials, reporters,
spectators
● Necessity
- Untuk apply, danger mesti lah imminent/expected to happen atau the act was
done untuk selamatkan hidup orang lain
- Selalu digunakan dalam case medical and surgical where surgery is needed
prior consent was given
- Boleh jadi private / public necessity

Smith v baker - PF kerja bawah DF untuk drill holes near a crane operated
by the DF jugak
- Crane tu angkat2 batu pastu kadang terkena kepala PF
- Sekali tu batu jatuh and injured the PF
- PF saman DF under the Employers Liability Act 1880
- Court: VNFI failed, DF liable. The mere fact that the PF
knew of the dangers arising from another activity in the
workplace does not mean he voluntarily undertook the risk

Kanagasabapathy v - PF (toddy tapper/penoreh getah) kerja bawah DF

Narsingam - PF jatuh dari pokok kelapa and injured
- Banyak kali dah PF mengadu kat DF kata lumut
menyebabkan licin so susah nak buat kerja
- Pada peringkat awal court kata DF liable for failing to
provide a safe and reasonable system of work for the PF
- DF plead VNFI dengan alasan PF cakna terhadap risiko2
berkerja dalam keadaan unsafe system tapi dia teruskan
berkerja
- Court: VNFI failed, DF liable. The mere fact that the PF
knew of the dangers does not imply that he undertook the
risk of injury and consented to it.
Imperial Chemical - PF were an experts shotfirers employed by ICI in a quarry
Industries v Shatwell owned by DF
- Kerja dorang berkaitan wiring and checking electrical
circuits
- Time kerja, dorang injured disebabkan explosion dekat DF
quarry berpunca daripada brother’s negligence. Tapi
dorang pulak menghadapi insufficient wire to test a circuit
that membolehkan dorang untuk test dari shelter je.
- So each brother claim against DF
- Held: PF were both EXPERTS. Dorang plak freely and
voluntarily tahu and aware the risk of involving
galvanometer.
- Takdak siapa paksa dia kerja and dorang jugak dah
specifically warned about complying with the safety and
regulations
- Defence of VNFI was accepted

Nettleship v Weston - PF did not consent to the injury

Wooldridge v Sumner - CL seorang photographer working at a horse show pastu

dia pi berdiri dalam ring yang show horse tu took place
instead of dekat spectator punya barriers
- Bila one of the horse lumba towards the PF dalam
kelajuan yang sangat laju sebab rider horse tu lost control,
the horse knocked him down
- CL sued for negligent
- DF is not liable sebab dia dah tunjukkan yang dia dah
amik reasonable precautions and dah buat his duty
satisfactorily
- Bila seseorang tu jadi spectator dekat event sukan, dia di
assume dah tahu risk of injury to himself disebabkan
action player [consent in sport]

List of 1. Volenti Non Fit Injuria (consent)

general 2. Illegality
defences 3. Mistake
4. Inevitable Accident
5. Act of God
6. Private defence
7. Necessity
8. Statutory authority
Volenti ● Court gives different meaning:
Non Fit - Consents = P gives consent
Injuria - VNFI = P does not give consent but his conduct has led D to
(consent) believe that he does

● Consent can be expressed in writing and implied from conduct

● Elements need to prove by the defendant:

1. P consent to such risk
2. P knowledge about the risk
3. P voluntariness

● Employment cases
★ Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd (ICI) v Shatwell [1965]
- P were brothers who worked for D as trained shot firers
- They (P) were injured as a result of an explosion caused by
P’s negligence at D’s quarry.
- This is because P had an insufficient wire to test a circuit to
allow them to test from a shelter
- P = claimed against D based on
1. Their employer’s vicarious liability for negligence
2. Breach of statutory duty of the other brother
- D = raised the defence of VNFI, P had full knowledge of the
risk
HELD:
- The defence of VNFI was accepted
- They(P) were both experts.
- P freely and voluntarily assumed the risk involved in using
the galvanometer

★ Smith v Baker & Sons [1891]

- P employee at D’s stone drilling site.
- P worked in a condition where there is continuous
stone-removal work operating by a crane over his head
- P got serious injuries from a stone that fell out of the crane.
- P = sued D, under the Employers Liability Act 1880
- D = raised VNFI, argued that P knew the work was dangerous
HELD:
- The defence of VNFI doesn't apply
- Because P:
1. Mere knowledge of the risk doesn't mean he consents
to accept the risk
2. Mere continuance of work doesn't indicate P acted
voluntarily.

● Passenger
★ Nettleship v Weston [1971]
- D asked P to teach her driving. Before agreeing, P inquired
about the car’s insurance policy.
 - D was a careful learner, however, in her third lesson she had
an accident as a result, P suffered an injury
- D=
1. argued P was well aware of her lack of skill(VNFI)
2. The court should make allowance for her (standard of
care should be lowered)
HELD:
- Court was in favor of P
- VNFI does not apply because P did not consent to the injury.
- Because P was aware of the D driver's inexperience, assigning a
lower standard to her would result in complicated shifting standards.

● Sporting events
- A person attending a game/competition assumes the risk of
any damage caused to him by any act of a participant done in
the course of and for the purposes of the game/competition.

★ Wooldridge v Sumner [1963]

- P was a spectator and photographer in a horse-racing
competition
- He got some injuries when one of the horses skidded.
HELD:
- D not liable
- D had taken reasonable precautions
- Spectators had assumed to have taken the risk of injury to
himself as the result of the actions of the players.

Illegality ● A claim can be defeated if it involves the plaintiff’s own illegal

conduct
● Requirement need to prove by the defendant:
1. the plaintiff's behaviour is so clearly terrible
★ Ashton v Turner [1981]
- P&D committed burglary and escaped from the scene in a
getaway car
- P was injured when D crashed the car in which P was the
passenger
- D who had been drinking was driving negligently.
HELD:
- P’s claim for negligence failed
- The law would not recognise a duty of care owed to another
participant in a crime as a matter of public policy.

★ Pitts v Hunt [1990]

- P and D had a drink and were set off home on a motorcycle
- P had knowledge that D was neither licensed nor insured to
ride
- D’s alcohol level was twice the legal limit
- D drove recklessly and dangerously encouraged by P
- P injured in an accident
 HELD:
- P’s claim failed on the ground of illegality which engaging in
illegality

Mistake ● Mistake of facts = when a person does any act but misunderstood
some fact that negates an element of crime
● Mistake of law = when a person commits any tort and asks defence
that he does not know the law

Inevitable ● Requirement need to prove by the defendant:

accident 1. The cause of the accident that resulted of which was
inevitable
2. All the possible causes which produced the effect, and the
result of these was unavoidable

★ Che Jah binti Mohamed Ariff v CC Scott [1952]

- P was a passenger in D’s car which crashed into a stationary
car causing injuries to P
- D gave evidence that previous reparation and maintenance
activities which brakes were repaired, tested, and functioned
well.
HELD:
- Defence of inevitable accident applicable
- The brake defects were latent defects
- D has employed skilled, and no negligence can be blamed.

★ Tangachimmah v Flower [1968]

- D’s car windscreen shattered, obscuring his vision totally.
- As a result, D collided with a deceased cyclist.
HELD:
- D liable, defence failed
- D failed to discharge the obligation on him to prove that the
cause of the accident was a cause that he could not prevent.

Act of God ★ Requirement need to prove by the defendant:

1. The damage/loss occurs through natural causes which are
unforeseeable
2. occurs without any human intervention.

★ Nicholas v Marsland [1876]

- D dammed up a natural system to create an artificial lake.
- An unusual and violent thunderstorm caused the artificial
barriers and water to collapse, damaging P's bridge.
HELD:
- D is not liable due to Act of God

★ Greenock Corp. v Caledonian Railway [1917]

- D built a pond by diverting a natural stream.
- It was destroyed by heavy rain, and the water that poured onto
the street caused damage to P's property.
 - D used the defence of Act of God
HELD:
- Defence rejected, D liable as he was negligent
- He had a duty to ensure people of lower ground would not be
injured/negatively affected as a result of their activities

Private ● A very natural thing for survival and prevention of repeated strikes
defence against him/ itself
● Types of private defence:
1. Defence of person
2. Defence of property

● Requirement need to prove by the defendant:

1. Reasonable to apply violence, if yes..
2. Whether the violence is linked to the strike(attack)

● Defence of Person
★ Lane v Holloway [1968]
- P (64 years old) would complain about the cafe noise run by
the D(23 years old)
- One day a fight occurred due to words exchange between P &
the D’s wife
- P hit D on the shoulder
- D retaliated causing P to suffer an injury of 16 stitches
HELD:
- D liable, self defence was not applicable
- D should not have taken P’s words as a challenge due to their
age difference
- The violent retaliation was unreasonable.

● Defence of Property
★ Creswell v Sirl [1947]
- P’s dog chased D’s sheep, causing it to miscarry
- D shot and killed P’s dog, argued the defence of property
HELD:
- Court allowed the defence
- D’s sheep was in actual and imminent danger

Necessity ● Defendant acted reasonably by committing the tort in order to prevent

greater harm
● Requirement need to prove by the defendant:
1. Real and imminent danger

★ Cope v Sharpe [1912]

- D had entered P’s land in order to stop the spread of fire to an
adjoining land (trespass to land)
- This is because he needs to protect his pheasants
- P sued for trespass to land
HELD:
 - D not liable
- There was real and imminent danger at the moment
- Therefore what he did was reasonably necessary

★ Rigby v Chief Cons. of Northamptonshire [1985]

- A dangerous psychopath entered P’s shop
- D, a policeman fired a canister of gas into the shop in order to
flush out that person
- The gas caused a fire which damaged the shop
- D was sued in trespass
- D raised necessity as a defence
HELD:
- Defence of necessity applied
- Therefore no trespass
- If the necessity is not the result of the defendant's own
negligence, the defence may be raised.

Statutory ● under normal circumstances that act would have amounted to tort, but
authority if there is the statutory authority that act would be not considered
under tort.

★ Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya v Steven Phoa Cheng [2006]

- Following the collapse of block 1, the local authority MPAJ
(the appellant) promised respondents to implement a drainage
plan to ensure the safety of other blocks.
- However, MPAJ failed to carry out the plan
- Respondents filed a suit against various parties including A
- A was found 15% liable for negligence.
HELD:
- Federal Court allowed the Appellant’s appeal and dismissed
the respondent’s cross-appeal