DEFENCES AND APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES
In Lampert v. Hefer, N.O.,1 the Appellate Division recognised assumption of risk as a defence to a negligence action and applied it to reject the claim of a passenger who accepted a ride with an intoxicated driver. One of the grounds of negligence alleged in the plaintiff's declaration was that the driver was under the influence of liquor. The defendant pleaded and proved that the plaintiff chose to be a passenger knowing that the driver was too intoxicated to drive properly or exercise reasonable care and appreciating the risk to which she was exposing herself. The Appellate Division held that this constituted voluntary assumption of risk and was a good defence. It declined to follow the contrary decision in Dann v. Hamilton.2
The principle volenti non fit injuria was seen as applicable to the claimant in a negligence action who consented to be exposed to the risk of injury as well as to the plaintiff in an intentional tort case who consented to the intentional act. The court recognised that assumption of risk and contributory negligence overlap, in that both fit the facts of some cases. The defendant's plea in the Lampert case might be viewed as raising either.3 The court did not find it____________________
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Book title: Common Law in Southern Africa:Conflict of Laws and Torts Precedents. Contributors: Peter B. Kutner - Author. Publisher: Greenwood Press. Place of publication: New York. Publication year: 1990. Page number: 181.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.