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
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 a 17 year-old claimant hit his head having jumped from a police van. His drunken state [...].
Answer
did not negate the defence of volenti

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 a 17 year-old claimant hit his head having jumped from a police van. His drunken state [...].
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 a 17 year-old claimant hit his head having jumped from a police van. His drunken state [...].
Answer
did not negate the defence of volenti
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
iscussed with reference to Occupiers’ Liability in a later Chapter). See also Sacco v Chief Constable of South Wales Constabulary [1998] (unreported) where a 17 year-old claimant hit his head having jumped from a police van. His drunken state <span>did not negate the defence of volenti.<span><body><html>

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.