Roggenkamp v Bennett

This case involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant, Roggenkamp, was a gratuitous passenger in a motor vehicle owned by the respondent, Bennett, and driven by Bennett's son. Roggenkamp claimed damages for injuries sustained in an accident, alleging negligent driving. The primary defence raised was that Roggenkamp, being intoxicated and having voluntarily participated in the drinking with the driver, had voluntarily accepted the risks associated with the driver's condition.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the trial judge's findings that the respondent had established the defences of *volenti non fit injuria* and that there was no breach of duty owed by the driver to the passenger were correct. Specifically, the court had to determine if Roggenkamp, by his own intoxication and continued participation in drinking with the driver, had fully appreciated and voluntarily accepted the obvious risks of travelling with a driver in such a state.

The High Court, by majority, dismissed the appeal. McTiernan and Williams JJ. held that the defence of *volenti non fit injuria* was established, finding that Roggenkamp knew and appreciated the danger and voluntarily consented to the risk. They affirmed the trial judge's findings of fact regarding the extent of intoxication and Roggenkamp's participation in it. Webb J. dismissed the appeal on the ground that, in the circumstances, there was no breach of any duty owed by the driver to the passenger, a position consistent with the reasoning in *Insurance Commissioner v. Joyce*. The court found that the trial judge's findings of fact, including the degree of intoxication and Roggenkamp's awareness of it, were well-supported by the evidence and should not be disturbed.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.