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 - Pratik worked on a drill to cut mountain rocks. Stones were being carried using a crane above his head. While Pratik was working suddenly a stone fell on his head causing head injuries.

 

Option: 1

Crane driver was negligent as they did not inform him.


Option: 2

 Crane driver is not liable because Pratik has knowledge of risk.


Option: 3

The maxim volenti non fit injuria applies in the present case.


Option: 4

Crane driver is liable only if Pratik ignores the safety instructions but still the maxim volenti non fit injuria doesn’t apply.

 


Answers (1)

best_answer

In the case of Smith v. Baker, the plaintiff worked on a drill to cut rocks. Some stones were being conveyed using a crane over his head. Once a stone fell on his skull causing some injuries. The court held that the defendants were negligent as they did not inform him before. Mere knowledge of risk does not mean that the person has consented to risk. The maxim volenti non fit injuria has no application. But, if a person ignores the instructions given by the employer thereby suffering injury then this maxim applies.

 

 

 

Posted by

Deependra Verma

View full answer

Similar Questions

Trending Articles/News

anam-khan

CLAT 2025 Hearing LIVE: Delhi HC seeks response from Consortium in 2 weeks; next hearing on April 7
anam-khan

CLAT PG counselling 2025 dates soon for LLM; category-wise expected cut-offs for top NLUs
anam-khan

CLAT 2025 counselling likely to begin after Delhi HC hearing on March 3; selection process explained

Latest Question