EDWARDS V. CHRISTENSEN
The defendant failed to exercise reasonable care for the plaintiff's safety under the circumstances, and the defence of volenti non fit does not defeat liability for negligence in these circumstances. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 13 May 1960
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Negligence, Duty of Care
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 2 Party arguments 2
Parties
Plaintiff
Plaintiff
Defendant
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant breached the duty of care to the plaintiff during the photographic expedition.
- 2 Whether the defence of volenti non fit applies to bar recovery in negligence.
Ratio Decidendi
The defendant failed to exercise reasonable care for the plaintiff's safety under the circumstances, and the defence of volenti non fit does not defeat liability for negligence in these circumstances. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment