Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T05:36:09.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Volenti Non Fit Injuria

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

A. J. E. Jaffey
Get access

Extract

The recent decision of the House of Lords in Titchener v. British Railways Board (which will be considered below) is a reminder of the uncertainty that strangely still surrounds the defence of consent or volenti nonfit injuria to an action in negligence. It is clear that the defence at least includes the case where there is an agreement, not necessarly constituting a contract, between the plaintiff and the defendant under which the plaintiff foregoes, in advance, a claim for negligence which might otherwise accrue to him, i.e., the plaintiff agrees that conduct of the defendant which would otherwise be actionable will not be so. The principal uncertainty is whether the plaintiff's mere voluntary exposure of himself to a danger already created, or likely to be created, by the defendant's negligence can give rise to the defence of volenti, either on the basis that such conduct of the plaintiff constitutes the requisite agreement to forgo a claim, or on the basis that no such agreement is necessary. This and other problems in regard to the nature and scope of the defence will be considered in this article.

Type
Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , March 1985 , pp. 87 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 [1983] 1 W.L.R. 1427.

2 Bennett v. Tugwell[1971] 2 K.B. 267, 273–274.

3 Burnett v. British Waterways Board [1973] 1 W.L.R. 700, 705, per Lord Denning M.R. (who says that in such a case the agreement is implied; it is submitted however that it is express, for, though acceptance is by conduct, the terms are written); Odgers, [1957] C.L.J. 39, 46.

4 Ashdown v. Samuel Williams & Sons Ltd. [1957] 1 Q.B. 409, 425–426, 427; Burnett v. British Waterways Board [1973] 1 W.L.R. 700, 705.

5 Torts, 15th ed., s. 1–129; Dias, [1966] C.L.J. 75.

6 S. 1–131.

7 Ss. 1–144, 145.

8 The Law of Torts, 18th ed., 467.

9 At p. 474.

10 At p. 469.

11 E.g., Clerk & Lindsell, Torts, 15th ed., s. 9–08; Winfield & Jolowicz, Tort, 11th ed., 687.

12 Williams, Glanville, Joint Torts and Contributory Negligence, 308;Google ScholarAtiyah, P. S., “Causation, Contributory Negligence and Volenti Non Fit Injuria” (1965) 43 Can. Bar. Rev. 609, 629.Google Scholar

13 [1959] 1 W.L.R. 966.

14 At p. 976.

15 [1963] 2 Q.B. 43, 70.

16 [1983] 1 W.L.R. 1427.

17 At p. 1434.

18 Op. cit., 467.

19 Op. cil., 308, 314.

20 Clerk & Lindsell (see notes 5, 6 and 7 supra);Salmond & Heuston (see notes 7, 8 and 9 supra);Street, The Law of Torts, 7th ed., 158; Gordon, , “Drunken Drivers and Willing Passengers” (1966) 82 L.Q.R. 62 insists that no agreement is necessary for the defence; Atiyah (1965) 43 Can. Bar. Rev. 625–633 leaves the question open.Google Scholar

21 See note 13 supra.

22 [1971] 2 Q.B. 691, 701. See also Smith v. Baker [1891] AC. 325, 355; Osbornev. L. & N.W. Rly.(1888) 21 O.B.D. 220, 224. In I.C.I. Ltd.v. Shatwell [1965] A.C. 656 most of the members of the House of Lords indicated that an agreement is the basis of the defence: see Atiyah. loc. cit., 629.

23 [1939]1 K.B. 509, 517. See also Torrance v. Itford Urban District Council (1909) 25 T.L.R. 355.

24 Haynes v. Harwood [1935] 1 K.B. 146, 156–157, 161–162; Bakerv. Hopkins [1959] 1 W.L.R. 966, 979, 983.

25 Cutler v. United Dairies [1933] 2 K.B. 297. See also Taylorv. Sims [1942] 2 All E.R. 375. There are also cases of plaintiffs who deliberately took a known risk which have been dealt with under nova causa(e.g. Rushton v. Turner Bros. Asbestos Co.[1960] 1 W.L.R. 96) or no duty of care (e.g. Farr v. Butters [1932] 2 K.B. 606) without any mention of volenti.

26 [1983] 1 W.L.R. 1427.

27 [1957] 1 Q.B. 409; White v. Blackmore [1972] 2 Q.B. 651.

28 White v. Blackmore [1972] 2 Q.B. 651, 668–670, 673–674.

29 [1977] Q.B. 397.

30 At p. 408.

31 Cf. Lord Reid in I.C.I. Ltd.v. Shalwell [1965) A.C. 656, 672–673.

32 See Glanville Williams, op. cit., 314–315; Atiyah, loc.c., 633.

33 Clayards v. Dethick (1848) 12 Q.B. 439.

34 The Times,3 January 1983. On appeal, The Times, 26 July 1984; Lexis transcripts.

35 For instance the Court of Appeal held that public policy does not bar a claim for damages in relation to the upkeep of the birth of a child.

36 Op. cit., s. 11–60.

37 Text to note 19, supra.

38 Op. cit., 313.

39 Ibid.

40 (1877) 2 Ex.D. 384, 394.

41 Morrison v. Union Steam Ship Co. of New Zealand [1964) N.Z.L.R. 468. 478–479. ContraGordon (1966) 82 L.O.R. 62.

42 [1963] 2 O.B. 43, 69.

43 Radwan v. Radwan (No. 2)(1973) Fam. 35, 52.

44 [1983] 1 W.L.R. 1427.

45 [1965] A.C. 656.

46 Why the defence of volenti was not pleaded in Stapley v. Gypsum Mines Ltd. [1953] A.C. 663, 665 (and see [1965] A.C. 656, at 670, 676, 686, 691–692) is a puzzle. From the miners' joint decision to stop trying to bring the roof down, and their knowledge of the danger of working under it, the implication of an agreement that neither would hold the other liable for injury suffered as a result would seem as natural as in Shatwell.

47 I.C.I, v. Shatwell [1965] A.C. 656, 688 (per Lord Pearce).

48 Contra Dann v. Hamilton [1939] 1 K.B. 509, disapproved in Nettleship v. Weston [1971] 2 O.B. 691 by Salmon L.J. at 704 and Megaw L.J. at 710, but approved by Lord Denning M.R. at 701.

49 [1971] 2 O.B. 691, 702, 706, 710.

50 [1981] Q.B. 137.

51 See p. 94, supra.

52 [1978] R.T.R. 426, 430.

53 At p. 746.

54 (1973) 123 N.L.J. 373.

55 A Casebook on Tort, 5th ed., 213.

56 [1971] 2 Q.B. 691, 703–706 following Insurance Commissioner v. Joyce (1948) 77 C.L.R. 39, 59–60 (per Dixon J.).

57 (1948) 77 C.L.R. 39, 57.

58 (1973) 123 N.L.J. 373, 375.

59 [1971] 2 Q.B. 691, 700–701. 707–709.

60 [1963] 2 Q.B. 43. Dias, [1962] C.L.J. 148.

61 At p. 66.

62 At pp. 68–69.

63 At p. 66.

64 At p. 69.

65 Murray v. Harringay Arena Lid.[1951] 2 K.B. 529.

66 [1963] 2 Q.B. 43, 68.

67 [1971] 1 W.L.R. 668, 674.

68 [1962] 78 L.Q.R. 490, 496.