Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Negligence of Tort Law

Hi, I am first-year law student doing my 2nd paper on Tort. Based on the below scenario I have found in a claim (Daryl suing Rick) that contributory negligence is not a factor, there is a duty of care and a breach of this duty, it was the breach that caused the injuries. although there is Daryl's medical condition he has zero negligence in the accident therefore voluntary assumption risk could not be used against him, have I missed anything or is there any defences Rick could use against Daryl's claim, ThanksScenario Daryl is a driver in ricks car, Rick is speeding on wet roads, approaches junction where a cyclist comes at speed around the corner, Rick slams brakes on crashing into a parked car causing Daryl to hit his head on the window (he was wearing his seatbelt), Daryl has a blood clot in the brain as a result of neck jerking, Daryl was taking anticoagulants prior to the accident. Experts say that had Rick has been doing the appropriate speed for the road/weather conditions he would have had sufficient time to stop and not crash. Daryl is seeking a claim against Rick.I have mentioned Donaghue, the Caparo test and but for test and omissions, negligence of tort etc.