Dann v Hamilton
A passenger who accepted a lift from a driver she knew had been drinking had not voluntarily accepted the risk of injury, unless the driver was so drunk that the danger was obvious.
Facts
Miss Dann and her mother spent an evening with Mr Hamilton, who drove them in his car to various places, and drank alcohol during the evening. Miss Dann knew that he had been drinking. Later in the evening, he drove her home, and crashed the car because of his drunkenness, killing himself and injuring her. She sued his estate.
Legal principle
Asquith J held that Miss Dann could recover. The defence of volenti non fit injuria did not apply, because she had not consented to the risk of injury by accepting the lift. The defence would apply only where the drunkenness of the driver was so extreme and so glaring that accepting a lift would be like engaging in an intrinsically and obviously dangerous occupation, such as intermeddling with an unexploded bomb. Contributory negligence was not pleaded.
Related cases on defences and damages
- Baker v TE Hopkins & Son Ltd [1959] 1 WLR 966
- Froom v Butcher [1976] QB 286
- Gray v Thames Trains Ltd [2009] UKHL 33, [2009] 1 AC 1339
- H West & Son Ltd v Shephard [1964] AC 326
- Haynes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146
- Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKSC 43, [2021] AC 563
- Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Shatwell [1965] AC 656
- Jackson v Murray [2015] UKSC 5, [2015] 2 All ER 805
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
