Defence - Volenti Non Fit Injuria

Question 1

Woodley v Metropolitan District Railway

Answer 1

When claimant undertook job repairing trains he knew of the danger which was present.

Question 2

Dan v Hamilton

Answer 2

A person accepting a lift from a drunk driver was not to be treated as volens unless the drunkenness was so extreme and so glaring that accepting a lift would be equivalent to intermeddling with an unexploded bomb or walking to the edge of an unfenced cliff.

Question 3

Haynes v Hardwood

Answer 3

A rescuer is not regarded as having freely and voluntarily accepted the risk, in this case a police officer was injured trying to protect people from a bolting horse.

Question 4

Tichener v British Railways Board

Answer 4

Notion of agreement may be artificial, defence can apply if parties have not met.

Question 5

ICI v Shatwell

Answer 5

A man who freely and voluntarily incurs a risk of which he has full knowledge cannot complain of injury if that risk materialises and causes him damage.

Question 6

Woolridge v Sumner

Answer 6

Consent is a defence to conduct which falls within the “ordinary course of a game”, defendant’s liability will depend on a breach of duty rather than an acceptance of the risk.

Question 7

Watson v British Boxing Board

Answer 7

Claimant accepted the risk of injury as a result of events in the ring, he did not accept the risk following inadequate medical treatment.

Question 8

Reeves v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis

Answer 8

Martin Lynch commit suicide in police custody, police had paternalistic duty towards him.

Question 9

Jolley v Sutton LBC

Answer 9

Two boys were injured trying to restore an abandoned boat that the council were aware of, council owed paternalistic duty.

Question 10

Smith v Barker

Answer 10

“One who has invited or assented to an act being done towards him cannot, when he suffers from it, complain of it as a wrong”