Facts: P is eight year old. D was driver. D did not insist on seatbelt for P because he thought it was P's father's responsibility. Car accident occurs that D is not responsible for. P injured because of no seatbelt.◦Normally if you don't wear a seatbelt there is contributory negligence for your injury for about 5-25% of damages.Court adopts Denning's view; objective standard for seatbelts: no one cares if you believe seatbelts are not safe etc., but the standard is that the reasonable person should wear a seatbelt.This case is mostly about DUTY: ◦Statutory Negligence: Statutory obligation: s.217(6) of the Motor Vehicle Actstates that:▪Drivers are obligated to ensure that people under 16 are wearing a seatbelt. Social policyreasons for forcing people to wear seatbelts.◦Drivers are in position of supervision and control over passengers.◦Similar to Canada v Saskatchewan Wheat Poolwe have a statutory breach; statutory breach can be used to suggest negligence; statutory breach is evidence that there could be negligence but is not conclusive of liability.Is duty negatived by presence of parent of child? D argues Arnold v Tenosaying that the presence of the parent in the vehicle negatives the duty owed to the child. However, the ruling
here says that it is a joint responsibility. ◦One person having a duty does not mean that another person does not have a duty.Duty to ensure under-16s wear seatbelts is shared by driver and parent in the event that child's parent is in the vehicle.** No duty to adult passengers unless they are intoxicated or lack capacity.**Usually child has capacity to be found negligent if they are over 7 years of age.** Ryan v Hicksonand Dellwo v Pearsoncases: child doing adult activity is adult standard etc. (is thisuseful?)
COMPLETE DEFENCESVoluntary Assumption of Risk: essentially the underlying idea is consentvolenti non fit inuria = to one that is willing, no harm is done.Complete defence; P denied any recovery if this is established.◦Sources of this principle: ▪Liberal Individualism: individual has the right to consent to anything, including harm.▪Deserving Plaintiff: a P who assumes the risk is not deserving of compensation. If you consent to lack of care, perhaps then you are partly culpable for your own damages.▪Reliance: D should be able to rely on the P's statement that he consents to the risk.So, courts say that voluntary assumption of risk will be made out in some cases.The voluntary assumption of risk may be expressor implied: bilateral exchange of termsBilateral View:just b/c P agreed to take on physical risks doesn't necessarily mean he agreed totake on legal risks as well (D must show both of these). There also needs to be a communicationbetween the two of them. So, you need part 1 and 2 of the express volenti, and then you need a communication of their willingness to agree to this.