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 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). See also Sacco v Chief Constable of South Wales Constabulary [1998] (unreported) where [...]. His drunken state did not negate the defence of volenti.
Answer
a 17 year-old claimant hit his head having jumped from a police van
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 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). See also Sacco v Chief Constable of South Wales Constabulary [1998] (unreported) where [...]. His drunken state did not negate the defence of volenti.
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 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). See also Sacco v Chief Constable of South Wales Constabulary [1998] (unreported) where [...]. His drunken state did not negate the defence of volenti.
Answer
a 17 year-old claimant hit his head having jumped from a police van
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it 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). See also Sacco v Chief Constable of South Wales Constabulary [1998] (unreported) where <span>a 17 year-old claimant hit his head having jumped from a police van. His drunken state did not negate the defence of volenti.<span><body><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.