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 consents to the infliction of harm

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 - Abha, a renowned academician has recently got a lot of public attention on social media. A famous production house offered Abha money to give them the right to document her life. When the show got aired Abha sued the production house for revealing some parts of her life which caused her trouble. Here-

 

Option: 1

Abha cannot sue the production house

 


Option: 2

Abha can sue the production house if she did not consent to a specific part being aired


Option: 3

Abha can only file a criminal case of defamation


Option: 4

Abha shouldn’t have agreed to get herself documented in the first place

 


Answers (1)

best_answer

 If a person agrees to the publication of something about which he was aware of, then such person cannot sue him on grounds of defamation.

 

Posted by

manish painkra

View full answer

Similar Questions

Trending Articles/News

anam-khan

CLAT 2025 counselling registration ends today at consortiumofnlus.ac.in; seat allotment result on December 26
anam-khan

CLAT 2025 Cut off: NLU expected category-wise cut-off marks, past trends, ranks
anam-khan

CLAT 2025 Counselling: Registration begins today at consortiumofnlus.ac.in; first allotment on December 26

Latest Question