Volenti Non Fit Injuria Flashcards
Principle
A legal wrong is not done to one who is willing”
Nature of defence
COMPLETE.
CONDON v BASI
Link to duty of care. Football match where a late and dangerous tackle was made leading to a broken leg.
POL: Still a duty of care to other participants. If fall below standard then liable.
SMITH v CHARLES BAKER AND SONS (*)
FACTS: Employed to cut rock near a crane. Lifts rock and swings overhead with no warning. Aware of the danger. Stone falls and injures. Knowledge is not sufficient for defence.
POL: “The question is not whether he voluntarily and rashly exposed himself to injury, but whether he agreed that, if injury should befall him, the risk was to be his and not his masters.” LORD WATSON
DANN v HAMILTON (*)
FACTS: Social outing to London and back. Driver didn’t start drink but became so later on. “Drove rather fast and swerved slightly.” Remained in car despite the opportunity to exit and go with another individual in other method to get back. Held, still no volenti defence.
POL: “Complete knowledge of the danger is in any event necessary, but such knowledge does not necessarily impact consent. It is evidence of consent, weak or strong, according to the circumstances.”
“drunkenness… so extreme and so glaring that to accept a lift from him is like engaging in an intrinsically and obviously dangerous operation.”
MORRIS v MURRAY (*)
FACTS: Drinking together for hours. Equivalent to 17 whiskies. Suggests a flight in plane. Crashed killing himself and injuring the other. VOLENTI DEFENCE.
POL: “Must depend on the extent of the risk, the passengers knowledge of it and what can be referred to as his acceptance.”
“wild irresponsibility… should leave the loss where it falls”
Far more inherent danger than other cases.
BAKER v HOPKINS & SONS (***)
Two suffer carbon monoxide poisoning. Went down to rescue man. Overcome. All 3 die. Owed dofc as foreseeable that , as result of negligence, someone would attempt to rescue
POL: VOLENTI DOES NOT APPLY WHERE INJURED PERSON IS A RESCUER.
Reeves (*)
CASE FACTS IN OTHER GROUP
POL: VOLENTI DOES NOT APPLY IF PURSUERS BEHAVIOUR IS THE VERY THING WHICH THERE IS A DUTY TO PREVENT. If breach causes then no defence..
Winnick v Dick (*)
FACTS: Pursuer is a passenger in a car and is injured. Raised action against driver who was already convicted of drink driving. Drinking together so knew drunk. No defence. Excluded by S149 of the ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988 (for passengers.)
POL: Willing acceptance by passenger of risk on part of driver cannot district liability of the driver to the passenger.
