Dann v Hamilton [1939] 1 KB 509

Facts:
  • C was injured in a car accident that was the result of the negligent driving of D who had been drinking.
  • C brought a claim for damages against D’s estate.
  • D raised the defence of volenti non fit injuria.

Issue:

  • Can the defence of volenti be used in order to preclude from remedy a person who has voluntarily accepted the risk which arises from a driver who is driving a car under the influence of alcohol?


Ratio:

  • Judgment in favour of C.
  • Volenti applied to negligence only in cases where C by his words or conduct has impliedly agreed to absolve D from liability, which was not the scenario in this case.
  • Simply knowing the risk is not enough; C must accept it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sion v Hampstead Health Authority [1994] EWCA Civ 26

Summarise and discuss Lord Bingham’s eight ‘sub-rules’ of the Rule of Law.

R. (on the application of Abbasi) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2002] EWCA Civ 1598, (2002)