Facts: The claimant was injured when the defendant crashed the car in which he was a passenger. The crash occurred after they both had committed a burglary and the defendant, who had been drinking, was driving negligently in an attempt to escape

Held: Ewbank J dismissed the claim holding that as a matter of public policy the law would not recognise a duty of care owed by one participant in a crime to another

Facts: The defendant, a Local Authority, released the claimant from a psychiatric hospital into "community care". He then killed a stranger for no evident reasons and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The claimant sought damages for the defendant's negligence in not providing adequate treatment

Held: The case was struck out as the court ought not to allow itself to be made an instrument to enforce obligations alleged to arise out of the claimant's own illegality

Facts: The claimant was injured when she was a willing passenger in Hamilton’s (not Lewis Hamilton!) car. He had been drinking and the car was involved in a serious crash which killed him. In a claim for damages the defendant raised the defence of volenti in that in accepting the lift knowing of his drunken condition she had voluntarily accepted the risk

Held: The defence was unsuccessful and the claimant was entitled to damages

⇒ “There may be cases in which the drunkenness of the driver at the material time is so extreme and so glaring that to accept a lift from him is like engaging in an intrinsically and obviously dangerous occupation, intermeddling with an unexploded bomb or walking on the edge of an unfenced cliff. … I find as a fact that the driver's degree of intoxication fell short of this degree.” (Asquith J at 518). In other words, this is saying volenti may be pleaded as a defence in similar such cases but it must be very very dangerous as if “intermeddling with an unexploded bomb”

Held: In this decision the House of Lords noted that the plea of volenti (i.e. voluntary assumption of risk) will rarely defeat a claim by an employee and his employer. However, their Lordships held that where the claim rests on vicarious liability for joint and flagrant disobedience of a safety rule by the claimant and a co-employee, the employer could exceptionally succeed on the defence

Facts: Kirkham was an alcoholic and suffered depression. He made two suicide attempts. He was admitted to hospital but discharged himself the following day. When he arrived home his wife prevented him from drinking and he became violent and started smashing furniture. The police came and arrested him. His wife informed them of his suicide attempts and it was agreed that he should be remanded in custody for his own safety. However, the police failed inform the prison authorities that Mr Kirkham was a suicide risk. He committed suicide whilst on remand at Risley Remand Centre. His wife brought an action based on the negligence of the police in failing to pass on the information. The police raised the defence of volenti (i.e. voluntary assumption of risk)

Held: The claimant (the wife) was successful: the police cant plead volenti when they have a duty and they know the person is a known suicide risk.

Facts: A friend took a learner driver out to practice. The learner panicked and drove into a tree. This did significant damage to the claimant's leg. The defendant originally tried to argue that the claimant had voluntary agreed to the risk

Held: Denning said that “nothing will suffice short of an agreement to waive any claim in negligence” i.e. an agreement to the risk by someone must be really, really clear. However, the defendant did successfully plead contributory negligence.

Facts: The claimant was injured while riding as a passenger on motorbike. The bike was driven by a drunk, unlicensed, uninsured friend. When rounding a bend it collided with an oncoming vehicle. The claimant brought an action against the friend’s estate (because the friend died).

Held: The Court of Appeal held that no duty of care will be recognised between participants to a joint criminal enterprise if the nature of the enterprise is such that it would be impossible or not feasible to ask how much care the reasonable person in the defendant's position would have taken in the circumstances - the court held that this test was satisfied in this case. Due to the nature of the joint illegal activity it was impossible for the court to determine a standard of care, which is appropriate to the situation. Thus, it was contrary to public policy and an affront to public conscience to compensate the claimant here (Beldam LJ)

Facts: The Claimant (the defendant's employee) was required to drill holes in a rock cutting. He was aware crates of stones swing overhead. A stone fell out of crate and injured him. The claimant brought an action in negligence against the defendant

Held: The House of Lords held (3:2) that the claimant may have been aware of the danger of the job, but had not consented to the lack of care so was therefore entitled to recover. Compare this case to ICI v Shatwell [1965]

Facts: Stapley was killed when the roof of a mine he was workign in fell on him. At the time of his death he was acting against his employer’s orders. Stapley and another employee (Mr Dale) had been told to bring the roof down because it was dangerous, so they both knew this meant that they shouldn't work in that part of the mine because of the risk. They attempted to bring down the roof but were unsuccessful in their attempts. They then decided to continue with the work they had originally been given. Then the roof then came down

Held: A claim was brought on behalf of Stapley against his employer for breach of statutory duty. The court accepted the employer owed a statutory duty of care, but it was held that Stapley was 80% contributory negligent

Facts: The claimant was addicted to alochol and drugs, and was imprisoned for theft. In custody he suffered seizures from withdrawal and suffered serious injury when falling from his bunk. The defendant knew he might suffer seizures but negligently gave him the top bunk. The defendant argued the claimant was contributory negligent in becoming addicted to drugs and alcohol

Held: The Court of Appeal rejected the defendant's arguments

Facts: The claimant and the defendant were lovers. Together they purchased a property from which they jointly ran a business by letting out the rooms in the house. It was agreed that the house would be registered in the claimant's name alone. This was so the defendant could fraudulently claim social security benefits which would go into their joint bank account. The relationship subsequently broke down and the claimant sought possession of the house asserting full ownership. The defendant sought a declaration that the property was held on trust for both of them in equal shares.

Held: The House of Lords rejected the public consciousness test and therefore the court found there was a resulting trust. However, the Law Commission was heavily critical of this decision saying that it should have been thrown out on illegality grounds

Facts: The claimant (a 15 year old girl) was out walking with her boyfriend who was 16. They took a shortcut across a railway line and they were both hit by a train. He was killed and she was seriously injured. They had accessed the railway though a gap in a fence. The question was, is the railway board responsible for the death as they knew there was this gap in the fence?

Held: The court said that on the one hand the railway was responsible as they should keep the fence up to standard, but on the other hand it is not unforeseeable that if you go onto a railway a train will come along. So, the Railway Board (the defendant), argued there had been volenti (an agreement to the risk by the teenagers i.e. the claimants)