The House of Lords overruled Stubbings and held that the same limitation period should apply to all personal injury actions.

The plaintiff was injured in a road accident in the course of escaping from a burglary.

The defence of illegality operated to defeat his claim because no duty of care had been owed to him in the circumstances as it would be an affront to the public conscience.

The plaintiff’s husband was a doctor who was killed in attempting to rescue some others from a well.

He had not consented to the risk. It is rare for ‘rescuers’ or those put in danger by the defendant to be defeated by volenti.

The plaintiff suffered head injuries in a motor accident in which he was not wearing a seat belt.

Owing to the fact that his injuries would have been prevented by a seat belt, his damages were reduced by 20% for contributory negligence.

The 13-year-old child plaintiff had been careless in crossing a road, when she was hit by the defendant’s car.

She was not contributorily negligent, but older children may be, in some circumstances.

A serious injury due to the negligence of the defendant led to the claimant being sentenced for manslaughter.

The claim was based upon a criminal act for which the claimant was responsible; according to the principle of illegality, the defendant was not liable for effects of that act.

The plaintiff was hit from behind while riding on the back of a vehicle. Though the most obvious risk was of falling off, he was held to be contributorily negligent.

Concerns the degree of foreseeability of causation required to establish contributory negligence.

The plaintiff was injured when the defendant ran over her legs while she sunbathed in a car park and she sued in battery.

There is no tort of unintentional battery and so the claim failed. The only possible action would be in negligence.

The plaintiff was injured on a drunken plane flight.

He had colluded in the dangerous venture and his claim was defeated by the defence of volenti.

The claimant had given the defendant a sum of money to place illegal bets which were not made. The defendant was successfully sued for the return of the money, despite the use of the illegality defence.

On appeal, the status of the illegality defence was reviewed. It was held that it would not be ‘just or proportionate’ to accept the illegality defence in these circumstances.

The plaintiff’s claim arose from a crash which occurred when he was riding pillion in a drunken motorcycle race.

Because it was not possible to define a duty of care in the circumstances of the joint illegal venture, the plaintiff failed.