Consent

1. Did C have full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk of negligence?

It’s not enough that C consented to a generic risk of injury, but to the negligence which produced the risk. This requires the claimant to have complete knowledge and understanding of the extent and nature of the risk.

.

2. Did C freely and voluntarily agree to take on the risk/accept the consequences of the negligence?

C’s intoxication does not necessarily invalidate their voluntary assumption of risk, especially if the risk is obvious, provided they had full knowledge and understanding of the risk at the time of consenting.

Spectators are deemed to have consented to the inherent risks of sport, provided they do not arise from the participant’s negligence

Consent is a defence to injuries sustained during sporting activities, so long as the conduct does not go beyond what is reasonably part of the sport

Young children cannot consent. Consent may work for older children, though is assessed on a case-by-case basis and depends on maturity and specific circumstances.

Accepting a lift from a drunk driver does not necessarily constitute consent, unless the driver’s intoxication is so extreme that C can be said to have accepted the risk of negligent driving

Generally, this defence fails between an employer and an employee due to lack of free will.

However, it may work where C disobeys explicit safety instructions.

Defence doesn’t apply to rescuers who respond to an emergency created by D’s negligence, as their actions are considered compelled by duty

However, this does not apply where D’s negligence poses no risk. If C intervenes where it is not necessary and becomes injured, he will be found to have consented.