Roggenkamp v Bennett [1950] HCA 23

Roggenkamp v Bennett [1950] HCA 23

The plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by choosing to travel as a passenger with a driver whose intoxication he was aware of and had helped to bring about. Under the maxim volenti non fit injuria, this constitutes a complete defence. Alternatively, there was no breach of duty owed by the driver to the plaintiff under the circumstances.

Parties
Appellant, Plaintiff: Stanley Adrian Roggenkamp; Respondent, Defendant: Albert George Bennett
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From a Judgment of the Supreme Court of Queensland (matthews J.)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Negligence, Volenti Non Fit Injuria, Contributory Negligence, Duty of Care, Gratuitous Passenger, Motor Vehicle Accident
Tort Law Negligence Volenti Non Fit Injuria Contributory Negligence Duty of Care Gratuitous Passenger Motor Vehicle Accident

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stanley Adrian Roggenkamp

Appellant, Plaintiff

Albert George Bennett

Respondent, Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From a Judgment of the Supreme Court of Queensland (matthews J.)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the driver was negligent in the circumstances and liable for injuries to a gratuitous passenger when both driver and passenger were intoxicated
  2. 2 Whether the defence of volenti non fit injuria applied, barring recovery
  3. 3 Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the passenger

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by choosing to travel as a passenger with a driver whose intoxication he was aware of and had helped to bring about. Under the maxim volenti non fit injuria, this constitutes a complete defence. Alternatively, there was no breach of duty owed by the driver to the plaintiff under the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.