Dann V. Hamilton 1939 (Case Summary)

This English case clarified the application of the defence of volenti non fit injuria (to one who consents, no harm is done), emphasizing that mere acceptance of a risky situation does not necessarily amount to voluntary assumption of risk unless the danger is so imminent as to be equivalent to meddling with it.

Facts of Dann v Hamilton 

1. The defendant, Hamilton, offered a ride to Dann, the plaintiff, in his car.
2. Hamilton was noticeably intoxicated, but Dann accepted the ride despite being aware of his condition.
3. Due to Hamilton’s drunken driving, the car met with an accident, resulting in injuries to Dann.
4. Dann sued Hamilton’s estate (as he died in the accident) for damages, claiming negligence.

Issues framed

1. Whether the defence of volenti non fit injuria absolves the defendant from liability when the plaintiff knowingly accepts a ride with a drunk driver?
2. Whether the plaintiff’s acceptance of the ride equates to consent to the risk of injury?

Judgment of Dann v Hamilton

The case examined the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria and the standard of negligence in tort law.

The court held that while Dann was aware of the risk posed by Hamilton’s intoxication, her decision to ride did not amount to voluntary assumption of that risk. For volenti to apply, the danger must be so immediate and obvious that it is equivalent to the plaintiff “meddling with” the risk. The court emphasized that passengers can expect a basic standard of care, even in the presence of foreseeable risks.

The court ruled in favor of Dann, rejecting the volenti non fit injuria defence. The court observed that “knowledge of the risk is not equivalent to consent to the risk unless it is glaringly and unequivocally accepted.”