Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
DEFENCES (Volenti non fit injuria (consent) (C's agreement to risk was…
DEFENCES
Volenti non fit injuria (consent)
C agreed to risk of injury
Smith v Charles Baker & Sons
In the 'master and servant' situation, volenti can only be applied with extreme caution and is hardly ever applicable
ICI v Shatwell
If the risk will obviously result in injury, it could be argued that C agreed to this risk
Nettleship v Weston
C did not consent to risk of injury as he queried about insurance cover before the driving lesson started
C had full knowledge of nature of risk
Morris v Murray
C had full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk when he went flying with a drunken pilot. Equivalent to 'medalling with an unexploded bomb'
Sacco v CC of South Wales
Even though C was drunk, there was such an obvious risk therefore had full knowledge
Dann v Hamilton
There are risks getting into a car with a drunken driver however C did not consent to the actual crash
C had capacity to give valid consent
Kirkham v CC of Greater Manchester
Defence of volenti could not be raised as C was of an unsound mind
C's agreement to risk was voluntary
Sports
Condon v Basi
Volenti is not allowed to be raised when a tackle is not legal and D showed such a reckless disregard for C's safety
Smoldon v Whiitworth
Anyone participating in a sport consents to the normal risks of the game but not the risks that go beyond the rules of that game
Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing
The type of danger to spectators was inherent in the sport and C consented to the risk of such an accident
Rescuers
Cutler v United Diaries
There was no obligation to help and the danger had already passed therefore volenti was successful
Haynes v Harwood
The rescuer did not consent to the injury as he had no choice but to go in and help (was a police officer and was in a busy public place)
Employers
Bowater
Cannot get genuine consent in an employment situation as a man is not said to be willing unless he has freedom of choice and full knowledge of circumstances
Suicide
Reeves v MPC
Volenti did not apply as the Police had a duty to prevent the suicide as C was under their control and D's knew of the risk of suicide
Contributory negligence
Did this failure contribute to the loss or injury
Froom v Butcher
C not wearing a seatbelt contributed to the loss
Was the injury within the type of risk run by C
Jones v Livox Quarries
C ran the risk of being thrown off the vehicle when he rode on the towbar
Did C fail to take reasonable care
Oliver Blais
Court unwilling to reduce damages for a childs contrib neg
Jones v Boyce
No contrib neg as it was an emergency situation
Harrison v BRB
Court have a lenient attitude towards rescuers unless they helped create the emergency situation
Froom v Butcher
C failed to wear a seatbelt therefore did not take reasonable care for his safety
Amount of reduction
The court will decide the 'just and equitable' reduction in damages in percentage terms
Froom v Butcher
Damages reduced by 20%
Ex turpi (illegality)
C was in the middle of an illegal act at the time
This was an affront to the public conscience
Pitts v Hunt
Defence successful as C's injury was directly linked to the illegal act
Ashton v Turner
The law will not recognise a duty of care from one participant in a crime to another. Defence successful
(where C is involved in a criminal act at the time so no action can be based on an illegal cause)
