31.   The plaintiff was therefore guilty of contributory negligence and could recover nothing.

32.   In considering whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent the court will take into account factors similar to those which would render the defendant negligent.

33.   In these circumstances the courts will find that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence but not volens to the risk.

34.   It was held that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence.

35.   In cases where the plaintiff was not at fault, he can recover his full loss against any of the defendants.

36.   Both defendants were accepted to be negligent and the plaintiff was contributorily negligent.

37.   The plaintiff was volenti as he had freedom of choice as to whether to attempt a rescue and there was a novus actus interveniens as the danger had passed.

38.   As the sub-contracting was unauthorised, the plaintiff could have been a trespasser to the council.

39.   Where the plaintiff is an adult, then knowledge of the risk accompanied by entry on the land will render the plaintiff volenti.

40.   The plaintiff was a tenant in a council flat designed and built by the defendants.