Consent

• Consent

  • full defence
  • when the claimant accepts a voluntary assumption of the risk of harm
  • Means that no injury is done to one who consents to the risk if it is successful the claimant will receive no damages
• Consent

  Two succeeded, the defendant has to show:

  1 knowledge of the precise risk involved

  2. Exercise of free choice by the claimant.

  3. A voluntary acceptance of the risk.
• Consent

  • One restriction on the use of the defence is s 149 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which provides that the defence cannot be used for road traffic accidents. This is because of third-party insurance.
  • The defence will not apply mainly because the claimant knows of the existence of the risk; he must have a full understanding of the nature of the actual risk
• Sterner v Lawson

  • consent was argued when the claimant had borrowed the defendants motorbike
  • The defence failed because the claimant had not been properly shown how to use a motorbike and did not therefore appreciate the risks
• Smith v Baker (1891)

  • A worker was injured when a crane move rocks over his head and some fell on him
  • The claimant had complained about the risks and had no choice but to continue to work
• Haynes v Harwood (1935)

  • defendant photo adequately to his horse the policeman who was injured trying to restrain the animal was not acting voluntarily
  • He was acting under duty to protect the public
  • Police did not consent to injury when doing their public duty
• Ogwo v Taylor (1987)

  • defendant had set fire to his house when attempting to burn off paint and despite wearing protective clothing c suffered burned from intense heat
  • Fireman did not consent to injury when doing their public duty
• Sidaway v Governors of the Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Hospitals(1985)


  - claimant suffered pain in neck shoulder and arms. Consent was obtained for an operation but surgeon fell to explain that in less than one percent of these operations paraplegia could be caused. She developed it

  • Not every possible risk has to be explained before valid consent can be given
• ICI Ltd v Shatwell (1965)

  • The claimant ignored his employees instructions on handling of detonators and was injured when one exploded
  • Claimant ignoring their employers instructions are not following statutory rules cannot use the defence of volenti
• Woolridge v Summer (1963)

  • claimant attended a horse show as a professional photographer and rider who is riding too fast lost control of horse which injured claimant
  • Although the rider of duty of care there was no negligence and volenti could not be argued