What are the grounds for ex turpi causa and volenti non fit injuria?
British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from Petersen v. Stadnyk et al, 2006 BCSC 806 (CanLII):
In Norman v. Kipps, the grounds for ex turpi causa and volenti non fit injuria were found not to exist and liability was apportioned pursuant to the Negligence Act in regard to assault and also to the plaintiff's provocation which instigated the assault.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
What is the test for the doctrine of ex turpi causa? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a defence of ex turpi causa operate as a defence to a claim based on a common law right? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the equitable maxim of ex turpi causa non oritur actio? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is evidence of ongoing pain sufficient to ground a substantial possibility that a plaintiff’s pain will adversely affect her future ability to work? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for making an adjournment application at the opening of a trial on the grounds that a party cannot be present? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for reasonable grounds in the context of privacy legislation? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does the expectation of lengthy medical testimony and actuarial evidence about loss of future earnings constitute sufficient grounds to deny a trial by jury? (British Columbia, Canada)
Do new responsibilities including a new family constitute grounds to support an application to cancel arrears? (British Columbia, Canada)
What grounds can be used to impute income under the Income Tax Guidelines? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is a Title Plan a representation of what is actually on the ground? (British Columbia, Canada)
