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
The claimant must know of the risk and its extent before they can be said to be volens. This is subjective – did that particular claimant know? It is not a question of whether the reasonable claimant would have known, i.e. objective. For example, in [case] the plaintiff accepted a lift with a drunken pilot. The plaintiff was drunk as well and this had to be taken account of by the court in determining whether he appreciated the danger involved.
Answer
Morris v Murray [1991] 2 QB 6

Tags
#defences #law #negligence #tort
Question
The claimant must know of the risk and its extent before they can be said to be volens. This is subjective – did that particular claimant know? It is not a question of whether the reasonable claimant would have known, i.e. objective. For example, in [case] the plaintiff accepted a lift with a drunken pilot. The plaintiff was drunk as well and this had to be taken account of by the court in determining whether he appreciated the danger involved.
Answer
?

Tags
#defences #law #negligence #tort
Question
The claimant must know of the risk and its extent before they can be said to be volens. This is subjective – did that particular claimant know? It is not a question of whether the reasonable claimant would have known, i.e. objective. For example, in [case] the plaintiff accepted a lift with a drunken pilot. The plaintiff was drunk as well and this had to be taken account of by the court in determining whether he appreciated the danger involved.
Answer
Morris v Murray [1991] 2 QB 6
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ant must know of the risk and its extent before they can be said to be volens. This is subjective – did that particular claimant know? It is not a question of whether the reasonable claimant would have known, i.e. objective. For example, in <span>Morris v Murray [1991] 2 QB 6 the plaintiff accepted a lift with a drunken pilot. The plaintiff was drunk as well and this had to be taken account of by the court in determining whether he appreciated the danger inv

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.