In Hall v. Hebert, an individual was severely injured when he allowed his intoxicated friend to drive his car. The Supreme Court of Canada had to deal with whether volenti non fit injuria would apply. What did the Court hold?

A) The plaintiff assumed neither the physical risk nor the legal risk in the circumstances.
B) The plaintiff assumed only the legal risk, but this is all that is required for volenti non fit injuria to apply.
C) The plaintiff assumed only the physical risk, but this is all that is required for volenti non fit injuria to apply.
D) The plaintiff assumed the physical risk, but there was no indication he had assumed the legal risk as well.
E) The plaintiff assumed the legal risk, but there was no indication he had assumed the physical risk as well.

Question

Pranjal Saloni · Accepted Answer

Final Answer : D, Explanation :  The Court held that the plaintiff assumed the physical risk by allowing an intoxicated person to drive, but there was no evidence that he had assumed the legal risk, which is necessary for volenti non fit injuria to apply.

Definitions

Learning Objectives

Learning Objectives

Related questions