Pete and John had been hired by the same computer consulting company. They worked a 3-hour shift and walked to a pub, where they had several beers. John said he'd drive Pete home. Pete knew John had been drinking but agreed to go with him anyway. The alcohol affected John's driving. He lost control of the car, which crashed through Mr. Britt's fence and Britt's garage. Pete was injured. John was not injured. Britt's neighbour, Mr. Watson, called the police. John was charged with the offence of driving while impaired and was found guilty in the criminal proceedings. Given these facts, which of the following is true?

A) Since Mr. Britt was not physically injured, he could not sue.
B) Mr. Watson, the neighbour, could successfully sue John for negligence.
C) Pete could sue John for negligence, but if the court held that Pete volunteered to take the physical and legal risk (volenti non fit injuria) , Pete would get no award of damages.
D) The principle of vicarious liability is relevant here because John was an employee at the time of the accident. John was charged with an offence; no one could sue him in a civil action for compensation.
E) One court action is all that is allowed.

Question

David Nortey · Accepted Answer

Final Answer : C, Explanation :  C) Pete could sue John for negligence, but if the court held that Pete volunteered to take the physical and legal risk (volenti non fit injuria), Pete would get no award of damages. This principle applies because Pete knew John had been drinking but still chose to ride with him, potentially assuming the risk.

Definitions

Learning Objectives

Learning Objectives

Related questions