Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Dann v Hamilton

[1939] 1 KB 509

Case summary last updated at 18/01/2020 17:18 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Dann v Hamilton

P knew that D was drunk and that, consequently, the chances of accident were thereby substantially increased, but decided to accept a lift. She was injured in an accident caused by the drunkenness of the driver, in which the driver was killed. In an action against the personal representative of the driver, the defendant raised the defence of volenti non fit injuria. Asquith J held that violenti non fit injuria only applies in extreme cases where the claim is negligent and this was not one of those cases. Therefore P could claim. A person in P’s situation “did not impliedly consent to, or absolve the driver from liability for any subsequent negligence on his part whereby she might suffer harm.” 

Dann v Hamilton crops up in following areas of law