Browse by Stream
QnA
Home
QnA
Go To Your Study Dashboard

Get Answers to all your Questions

header-bg qa
  • Home
  • Law
  • Read the following passage and the question. Volenti non fit injuria-It basically means the voluntary assumption of risk. When a person consent

Read the following passage and the question.

Volenti non fit injuria-It basically means the voluntary assumption of risk. When a person consents to the infliction of harm upon himself, he has no remedy for that in tort, making this an excellent defence for the defendant against tortious liability. Consent forms an essential part of this doctrine- whether it is implied or expressed. It must not be obtained fraudulently (as held in R. v. Williams).This doctrine is based on the idea that “no man can enforce a right that he himself has waived or voluntarily abandoned”. However, the harm caused must not be beyond what is consented to. In case, a plaintiff voluntarily suffers some harm, he has no remedy for that under the law of tort and he is not allowed to complain about the same. The reason behind this defence is that no one can enforce a right that he has voluntarily abandoned or waived. Consent to suffer harm can be expressed or implied. 
The consent must be free, For this defence to be available it is important to show that the consent of the plaintiff was freely given. Consent obtained by fraud is not real consent and does not serve as a good defence. Consent obtained under compulsion There is no consent when someone consents to an act without free will or under some compulsion. It is also applicable in cases where the person giving consent does not have full freedom to decide. This situation generally arises in a master-servant relationship where the servant is compelled to do everything that his master asks him to do. The defense of Volenti non fit injuria is also not applicable in cases of negligence as the basic constituent of the doctrine is consent- whether implied or expressed. But, if due to some act of the defendant, the plaintiff is not left with ample time to choose to provide consent or not, there can be no agreement to suffer harm from the said act. 

Question - Rishi took his car to fill the petrol in it. Two strangers named Neeraj and Ali took a lift in the car. The car got toppled due to some problem with the wheel. Neeraj and Ali fell out of the car and they suffered some injuries leading to the death of Ali. What is the liability of Rishi?

 

 

Option: 1

 He is liable for murdering Ali

 


Option: 2

No liability arises because they voluntarily took the lift

 


Option: 3

No liability arises because it was merely an accident

 


Option: 4

He is liable for committing grievous hurt to Neeraj and the death of Ali

 


Answers (1)

best_answer

In the case of Padmavati v. Dugganaika, the driver of the jeep goes to fill the petrol in it. Two people ask for a lift. After some time, the jeep got toppled due to some issue with the right wheel. The two strangers who took the lift were thrown out of the jeep and they suffered some injuries leading to the death of one person. 

Here, the Court held that the driver is not liable for any damages or offence because- It was a case of an accident and the strangers had voluntarily gotten into the vehicle. But, the principle of Volenti non fit injuria was not applicable here.

 

Posted by

sudhir.kumar

View full answer

Similar Questions

Trending Articles/News

anam-khan

CLAT 2025 Cutoff: Expected cutoff ranks, marks for General category; UG, PG seat intake
anam-khan

CLAT 2025: WBNUJS ranked 4th in NIRF this year; cut-offs, category-wise closing ranks
anam-khan

CLAT 2025 counselling delayed: Consortium of NLUs to approach SC seeking relief against Delhi HC order

Latest Question