Tort Law - Violensa Injuria + Contributory Negligence

Question 1

What is Volenti non fit injuria?

Answer 1

Latin for: “To a willing person, no injury is done”. It is a complete defence to negligence — if successful, D is not liable at all.

Question 2

When is Volenti not allowed as a defence?

Answer 2

Under s.148 Road Traffic Act 1988, Volenti cannot be used by drivers to avoid liability to passengers in vehicle accidents.

Question 3

What are the 3 elements of the Volenti defence?

Answer 3

1. C had knowledge of the precise risk
2. C exercised free choice
3. C gave voluntary acceptance of the risk

Question 4

What does ‘knowledge of the risk’ mean?

Answer 4

C must fully understand the nature and extent of the specific risk.

Stermer v Lawson – Defence failed; C didn’t understand the danger of the motorbike.
Morris v Murray – Defence succeeded; risk of flying with a drunk pilot was obvious.

Question 5

What does ‘free choice’ mean?

Answer 5

C must act freely, not under pressure or obligation.

Smith v Baker – Defence failed; worker carried on out of fear of losing job.
ICI v Shatwell – Defence succeeded; C ignored safety instructions voluntarily.
Haynes v Harwood – Defence failed; police officer had legal duty to act.

Question 6

Does Volenti apply to rescuers or professionals?

Answer 6

Generally no – courts are reluctant to apply Volenti to rescuers, especially police or emergency services. Public policy favours protecting those who act to save others.

Question 7

What about Volenti in medical cases?

Answer 7

C’s consent doesn’t need to be fully informed for every minor risk.

Sidaway – Defence failed; doctors don’t have to explain every remote risk unless it’s material.

Question 8

What about Volenti in sports?

Answer 8

C accepts normal risks of the game, but not reckless or excessive force outside the rules.

Condon v Basi.

Question 9

What is Contributory Negligence?

Answer 9

This is a partial defence under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. If C is partly to blame, their damages are reduced to reflect their share of fault.

Question 10

What must D prove for Contributory Negligence?

Answer 10

1. C’s behaviour fell below the standard of the reasonable person
2. C’s actions contributed to their own loss

Question 11

How are damages adjusted?

Answer 11

The court decides a just and equitable percentage reduction. It used to be a complete defence, but now only reduces damages.

Question 12

Case examples of contributory negligence:

Answer 12

1. Sayers v Harlow UDC – C injured escaping a locked toilet. → Council liable, but damages reduced by 25% for how she tried to escape.
2. Jayes v IMI Ltd – C removed a machine guard himself. → Damages reduced by 100% – he was fully to blame.
3. Froom v Butcher – C wasn’t wearing a seatbelt. → Injuries worsened → 20% reduction in damages.
4. Stinton v Stinton – C accepted a lift from a drunk driver knowingly. → Damages reduced by ⅓.
5. Badger v MoD – C exposed to asbestos but also smoked heavily. → Damages reduced by 20% as smoking made condition worse.