levo

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.

Your recallNot started
Key term

What did Dann v Hamilton [1939] decide?

Numbers

What does section 149 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provide?

Key term

Why did Parliament restrict volenti in road traffic cases?

Questions from this subtopic

Each one with the model answer underneath.

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

1Closed book
2Open book
3Closed book

See a huge jump in your memorisation

Answer cold, learn it, then prove it stuck. Levo tracks the jump between your first attempt and your last.

Parliamentary and European Law Making
Delegated Legislation
Statutory Interpretation
Judicial Precedent

Cram a whole paper in one sitting

Sort every topic into what you know and what you do not, then drill only the weak ones.

The court sits in .
StrasbourgLondonParis

Blank Blitz consolidates the facts

Rapid timed gap-fills on the terms and numbers you need to recall without thinking.

AAn interim injunction restrains publication before trial.
BPublication cannot be undone.
CAn injunction may be the only effective remedy.

Build It trains answer structure

Assemble a full-mark answer from its marking points, in the order an examiner wants them.

A Public Bill changes the general law.
TrueFalse

Test It catches misconceptions

Spot the fault in a statement. The traps are the mistakes students actually make.

721941163128510

Brain Breaks between sessions

Short focus games to reset attention, so the next set lands better than the last.

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.