Eduqas A-Level Law A150QS
Parliamentary and European Law Making
Delegated Legislation
Statutory Interpretation
Judicial Precedent
The Civil Courts and Civil Process
The Criminal Process
Legal Personnel
Access to Justice and Funding
Contract: Rules and Theory of Contract LawContract
Contract: Essential Requirements and FormationContract
Contract: Express and Implied TermsContract
Contract: Misrepresentation and Economic DuressContract
Contract: Discharge of ContractContract
Contract: RemediesContract
Tort: Rules and Theory of Tort LawTort
Tort: NegligenceTort
Tort: Occupiers' LiabilityTort
Tort: Torts Connected to LandTort
Tort: Vicarious LiabilityTort
Tort: Defences and RemediesTort
Criminal Law: Rules and TheoryCriminal
Criminal Law: General Elements of LiabilityCriminal
Criminal Law: Offences Against the PersonCriminal
Criminal Law: Property OffencesCriminal
Criminal Law: Capacity DefencesCriminal
Criminal Law: Necessity Defences and Preliminary OffencesCriminal
Human Rights: Rules and TheoryHuman rights
Human Rights: Protection of Rights and Freedoms in the UKHuman rights
Human Rights: Convention ProvisionsHuman rights
Human Rights: Restrictions on Convention RightsHuman rights
Human Rights: EnforcementHuman rights
Human Rights: ReformHuman rights
Tort: Defences and Remedies
Volenti in road traffic cases and the defence of illegality
- 3 things to know
- Components 2 and 3
Overview
Dann v Hamilton and the passenger who knew the driver had been drinking, the bar section 149 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 puts on volenti, and the illegality defence in Pitts v Hunt.
What you need to know
Answer each one before you reveal it.
What does section 149 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provide?
Why did Parliament restrict volenti in road traffic cases?
Questions from this subtopic
Each one with the model answer underneath.
- 1
What did Dann v Hamilton [1939] decide?
Model answer
A passenger accepted a lift from a driver she knew had been drinking and was injured. The court rejected volenti, because the drunkenness was not so extreme that accepting the lift amounted to consent.
- 2
What does section 149 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provide?
Model answer
Section 149 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 makes a passenger's acceptance of risk of no effect against a driver. Volenti cannot be used where compulsory motor insurance applies.
- 3
Why did Parliament restrict volenti in road traffic cases?
Model answer
Compulsory insurance exists so that road accident victims are actually compensated. Allowing volenti would defeat the purpose of requiring insurance in the first place.
- 4
What is the effect of section 149 on a passenger who knew the driver was drunk?
Model answer
The passenger's knowledge of the danger cannot defeat the claim altogether. Damages may still be reduced for contributory negligence.
- 5
What did Pitts v Hunt [1991] decide?
Model answer
A passenger encouraged a drunk and unlicensed motorcyclist to ride dangerously, and the rider was killed. The Court of Appeal held that section 149 prevented volenti but that the claim failed for illegality.
- 6
What is the defence of illegality?
Model answer
Illegality, or ex turpi causa non oritur actio, bars a claim founded on the claimant's own criminal conduct. The defence rests on the principle that a court should not assist a wrongdoer.
Other ways to work this
The same content, four other ways.
What is inside Levo
Six ways to work the same material.
Every question in Tort: Defences and Remedies, on a schedule.
Attempt a question from memory, write the correct version, then attempt it again. Levo records the jump between your first attempt and your last, and brings each question back on the day you are due to forget it.
Or £46 a year, about £3.83 a month. Cancel anytime.