Jones v Livox Quarries Ltd
A claimant is contributorily negligent if he exposes himself to a risk of the kind of harm that occurred, even if it happened in a slightly different way from the one he might have foreseen.
Facts
Mr Jones was employed at a quarry. Contrary to his employer's instructions, he rode on the back of a traxcavator, a slow moving vehicle, to go to the canteen. Another vehicle, driven negligently by another employee, ran into the back of the traxcavator, crushing Mr Jones. He sued his employer. The employer argued that he had been contributorily negligent, and Mr Jones argued that the danger of riding on the vehicle was that he might fall off, not that he would be hit from behind.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Jones was contributorily negligent, and his damages were reduced by a fifth. Denning LJ said that a person is guilty of contributory negligence if he ought reasonably to have foreseen that, if he did not act as a reasonable, prudent man, he might be hurt himself, and that the risk of being run into from behind was one of the risks to which he had exposed himself by riding on the vehicle. The injury was within the risk he had taken.
Related cases on defences and damages
- Baker v TE Hopkins & Son Ltd [1959] 1 WLR 966
- Dann v Hamilton [1939] 1 KB 509
- Froom v Butcher [1976] QB 286
- Gray v Thames Trains Ltd [2009] UKHL 33, [2009] 1 AC 1339
- H West & Son Ltd v Shephard [1964] AC 326
- Haynes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146
- Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKSC 43, [2021] AC 563
- Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Shatwell [1965] AC 656
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
