In an action for damages alleged to have arisen from the negligent driving of a motor vehicle it was pleaded, inter alia, on behalf of the defendant, that the vehicle driven by the defendant's servant went off the road because of "inevitable accident" in that the site of the accident deceptively appeared firm, but in fact turned out to be soft and slippery and as a result the vehicle unavoidably became uncontrollable and rolled over on its roof. It was further contended that the plaintiff was negligent in that she had freely and voluntarily embarked on the vehicle with the knowledge that it had only just been stuck in the road because of the poor condition of the road and that, with full knowledge, she allowed herself to be driven thereafter on the road, the condition of which was poor throughout.
Held:
(i) It is negligence on the part of a driver to drive a vehicle too fast when he appreciated the danger involved and knew of the possibility of skidding of the vehicle.
(ii) A person cannot be said to have given his consent to suffer an injury when he did not anticipate the danger and did not voluntarily accept the risk.
(iii) In a tort action damages can be granted only for injuries proved to have been suffered as a direct result of the accident through negligence but not for those not proved on probabilities; while assessing damages decrease in money value must be kept in mind.
