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 [...].
Answer
the risk was so extreme that it was the equivalent of ‘meddling with an unexploded bomb’
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 there was knowledge of the risk of injury, but no implied agreement to it unless [...].
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 there was knowledge of the risk of injury, but no implied agreement to it unless [...].
Answer
the risk was so extreme that it was the equivalent of ‘meddling with an unexploded bomb’
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it d><head>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’.<html>
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised 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.