Skip to main content

Volenti Non-Fit Injuria

 Volenti Non-Fit Injuria 

By Shweta Nair


Meaning

‘What is consented to is not an injury or a wrong.’ 

If a person suffers any harm voluntarily then that will not amount to legal injury and therefore it is not actionable. A person cannot complain of any injury or damage resulting from an act to which he has expressly or impliedly consented to. 

If an act is done with the consent of the plaintiff, or if the plaintiff has freely or voluntarily and with full knowledge of the nature and extent of risk agreed to an act, he cannot afterwards complain against that act. 

Express Consent- Consent is said to be expressed where a person submits or agrees to a particular act. 

Example: If a person goes to a surgeon and agrees to undergo surgery operation under him. Here the person has given his express consent to the surgeon. 

Implied Consent- Consent is said to be implied where the injury complained of was incidental to the thing consented to. 

Example: If you agree to play a game of football, you also agree that you are likely to suffer an injury from playing and you are well-aware of this fact. Here, you cannot maintain an action. If there is a foul play and the opponent wilfully causes injury to you then action will be maintained. 

*Not applicable for Physicians. 

Hall v. Brookland Auto Racing Club

The plaintiff was a spectator at a motor car race which was being held at Brookland on a track owned by the defendant company. During the race, there was a collusion between two cars due to which a racing car shot over the railing and killed two spectators and causing injury to the plaintiff. It was for the first time that such an accident had taken place. The court held that there was no diligence and that such type of danger to the spectator is inherent in the sport and therefore, the defendant was not held liable. 

Exceptions to the Maxim: 

  1. Unlawful act- no consent can legalize an unlawful act. 

  2. Breach of statutory duty- If any harm or injury is caused due to breach of statutory duty then the defence of this maxim cannot be pleaded. 


Pearson v. Coleman Brother

A little girl who visiting a circus was mauled by the lion when she went near lion’s cage. The cage was fenced with but the distance between the two bars was such that it was sufficient enough for the lion to put out his paws. The defendant was held liable for breach of statutory duty. 


  1. Rescue Cases- When a person’s life is in danger, another person voluntarily undertakes to save such a person from death or injury irrespective of the fact whether he owes a duty of care or not. The endangered person being his family member or a stranger, the defence of volenti non-fit injuria will not be applicable. 


Haynes v. Harwood 

In this case, the defendant’s servant left a two-horse van unattended in a public street. A boy threw a stone at the horses due to which they bolted causing grave danger to woman and children on the road. 

A police constable who was on duty in the nearby police station, on seeing that it is dangerous to the woman and children on the street voluntarily to avoid himself and manage to stop the horses but while doing so, he suffered some personal serious injuries. It being a rescue case, the defence of volenti non-fit injuria was not accepted and the defendant were held liable. 


  1. Negligence- In cases of negligence, the defence of volenti non-fit injuria is generally not allowed. 


Dann v. Hamilton 

The plaintiff knowing that the driver of the motor car was under the influence of drinks and consequently the chances of accident taking place was thereby increased yet chose to travel by that car even though there was no compulsion or necessity. The car met with an accident due to the drunkenness of the driver in which the plaintiff suffered injuries and the driver was killed. 

In an action by the plaintiff against the personal representative of the deceased driver, the defendant took up the defence of volenti non-fit injuria but the court held that in extreme cases, this maxim does not apply to the tort of negligence and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more