contract law

I don't see that novus actus interveniens would be appropriate (some external act or event that contributes / exacerbates the situation) But I'm also not convinced that volenti is appropriate. Yes, the injured party must have known of the risk and been a volunteer to participate but the cases that I (used to) quote to illustrate volenti don't seem to illustrate this point about the party's own actions that resulted in that party's injuries Haynes v Harwood compared with Cutler v United Dairies (Volenti is set aside in a 'rescue' situation but is applied where the 'rescuer' is held to have been 'a meddler') It seems to me that more appropriate answer would be "contributory negligence" OK?