Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.



Tags
#defences #law #negligence #tort
Question
In Dann v Hamilton [1939] 1 KB 509 the plaintiff accepted a lift with someone he knew to be drunk. Again, there was no volenti since [...] unless the risk was so extreme that it was the equivalent of ‘meddling with an unexploded bomb’.
Answer
there was knowledge of the risk of injury, but no implied agreement to it

Tags
#defences #law #negligence #tort
Question
In Dann v Hamilton [1939] 1 KB 509 the plaintiff accepted a lift with someone he knew to be drunk. Again, there was no volenti since [...] unless the risk was so extreme that it was the equivalent of ‘meddling with an unexploded bomb’.
Answer
?

Tags
#defences #law #negligence #tort
Question
In Dann v Hamilton [1939] 1 KB 509 the plaintiff accepted a lift with someone he knew to be drunk. Again, there was no volenti since [...] unless the risk was so extreme that it was the equivalent of ‘meddling with an unexploded bomb’.
Answer
there was knowledge of the risk of injury, but no implied agreement to it
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Dann v Hamilton [1939] 1 KB 509 the plaintiff accepted a lift with someone he knew to be drunk. Again, there was no volenti since there was knowledge of the risk of injury, but no implied agreement to it unless the risk was so extreme that it was the equivalent of ‘meddling with an unexploded bomb’.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Details

No repetitions


Discussion

Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.