As previously discussed, in Morris v Murray [1991] 2 QB 6, where the plaintiff accepted a lift with an obviously drunken pilot, the risk of injury was so great as to be the equivalent of ‘meddling with an unexploded bomb’. Therefore, an implied agreement to run the risk of injury could be established. A similar decision was reached in [case], when a drunken student dived into a swimming pool not having checked its depth (this case is discussed with reference to Occupiers’ Liability in a later Chapter).
Answer
Ratcliffe v McConnell [1999] 1 WLR 670
Tags
#defences #law #negligence #tort
Question
As previously discussed, in Morris v Murray [1991] 2 QB 6, where the plaintiff accepted a lift with an obviously drunken pilot, the risk of injury was so great as to be the equivalent of ‘meddling with an unexploded bomb’. Therefore, an implied agreement to run the risk of injury could be established. A similar decision was reached in [case], when a drunken student dived into a swimming pool not having checked its depth (this case is discussed with reference to Occupiers’ Liability in a later Chapter).
Answer
?
Tags
#defences #law #negligence #tort
Question
As previously discussed, in Morris v Murray [1991] 2 QB 6, where the plaintiff accepted a lift with an obviously drunken pilot, the risk of injury was so great as to be the equivalent of ‘meddling with an unexploded bomb’. Therefore, an implied agreement to run the risk of injury could be established. A similar decision was reached in [case], when a drunken student dived into a swimming pool not having checked its depth (this case is discussed with reference to Occupiers’ Liability in a later Chapter).
Answer
Ratcliffe v McConnell [1999] 1 WLR 670
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it with an obviously drunken pilot, the risk of injury was so great as to be the equivalent of ‘meddling with an unexploded bomb’. Therefore, an implied agreement to run the risk of injury could be established. A similar decision was reached in <span>Ratcliffe v McConnell [1999] 1 WLR 670, when a drunken student dived into a swimming pool not having checked its depth (this case is discussed with reference to Occupiers’ Liability in a later Chapter).<span><body><
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.