volenti non fit injuria

The principle of volenti non fit injuria is a fundamental doctrine in tort law that applies in situations where a person willingly exposes themselves to a known danger or harm. It is based on the concept that if a person voluntarily assumes the risk associated with an activity, they cannot later claim compensation for any injury or harm that results from that activity.

Meaning of  volenti non fit injuria

“Volenti non fit injuria” is a Latin legal term that means “to a willing person, no injury is done”. In the context of torts law in India, the principle of volenti non fit injuria means that if a person voluntarily agrees to accept the risks associated with a particular activity, then they cannot later claim compensation for any harm or injury that results from that activity. volenti non fit injuria is one of the general defences in law of torts.

For example, if a person participates in a dangerous sport like skydiving or bungee jumping, and they sign a waiver acknowledging the risks involved, then they may not be able to sue for damages if they are injured during the activity. This is because they have voluntarily assumed the risk and waived their right to seek compensation.

In the case of Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club, the plaintiff attended a car race where two vehicles collided. As a result of the collision, one of the cars flew into the audience, injuring the plaintiff who was in attendance. The defence of volenti non fit injuria was raised, arguing that the plaintiff had voluntarily assumed the risk of such harm by attending the race.

However, there are certain exceptions to the principle of volenti non fit injuria, such as cases where the harm was caused by deliberate or reckless conduct, or where there was a breach of statutory duty.

Essentials of volenti non fit injuria

There must be a voluntary acceptance of risk

This means that the person must have had knowledge of the risk associated with the activity and must have willingly accepted that risk. For example, if a person participates in a dangerous sport like rock climbing or scuba diving, they are assumed to have accepted the risk associated with those activities.

The acceptance of risk must be informed

This means that the person must have been fully aware of the nature and extent of the risks involved in the activity. This can be done through disclosure, warning, or waiver. For example, a person who signs a waiver acknowledging the risks associated with an activity is considered to have given informed consent to the risks.

The person must have had the capacity to give consent

This means that the person must have been of sound mind and capable of making an informed decision to accept the risk. For example, a person under the influence of drugs or alcohol may not have had the capacity to give informed consent to the risks associated with an activity.

The acceptance of risk must be voluntary

This means that the person must not have been coerced or forced to participate in the activity. For example, if a person is forced to participate in a dangerous activity against their will, they cannot be said to have accepted the risk associated with that activity.

The risk must be a legal risk 

This means that the risk must be one that is recognized by law as being acceptable. For example, a person who voluntarily participates in a boxing match cannot later claim compensation for any injuries sustained during the match, as boxing is a legally recognized sport.

The risk must be proportionate to the benefit obtained

This means that the benefit obtained from the activity must be greater than the risk involved. For example, if a person risks injury by participating in a sport, but the benefit obtained is personal satisfaction or enjoyment, then the risk may be considered disproportionate to the benefit.

Consent in volenti non fit injuria cases

One limitation is that the principle may not apply if the person was not fully aware of the risks involved in the activity. For example, if a person is not given adequate warning or disclosure about the risks associated with a particular activity, they may not have given informed consent to those risks. In such cases, the principle of volenti non fit injuria may not be applicable, and the person may be able to claim compensation for any harm or injury suffered.

Another limitation is that the principle may not apply if the person was coerced or forced to participate in the activity. For example, if a person is threatened with physical harm if they do not participate in a dangerous activity, they cannot be said to have willingly assumed the risk associated with that activity. In such cases, the principle of volenti non fit injuria may not be applicable, and the person may be able to claim compensation for any harm or injury suffered.

A further limitation is that the principle may not apply if the person was not capable of giving informed consent to the risks involved in the activity. For example, if a person is mentally incapacitated or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, they may not be capable of making an informed decision to assume the risks associated with a particular activity. In such cases, the principle of volenti non fit injuria may not be applicable, and the person may be able to claim compensation for any harm or injury suffered.

Additionally, the principle may not apply if the harm suffered by the person was not a foreseeable consequence of the activity. For example, if a person is injured in a car accident while participating in a legal street race, they may be able to claim compensation for their injuries, as the harm suffered was not a foreseeable consequence of the activity. In such cases, the principle of volenti non fit injuria may not be applicable, and the person may be able to claim compensation for any harm or injury suffered.

Furthermore, the principle may not apply if the person was acting under a mistake or misapprehension of fact. For example, if a person participates in an activity believing that it is safe, but later learns that it is not, they may be able to claim compensation for any harm or injury suffered. In such cases, the principle of volenti non fit injuria may not be applicable, and the person may be able to claim compensation for any harm or injury suffered.

volenti non fit injuria cases

In Ravindra Padmanabhan (Dr.) v. Lakshmi Rajan and Anr., the plaintiff underwent surgery to remove a tumour on her breast. However, the doctor also removed her uterus during the procedure, despite it being unrelated to the tumour. The court held the defendants liable, and as such, rejected the defence of volenti non fit injuria.

Similarly, in the case of Padmavati v. Dugganaika, the plaintiffs had requested a ride in the defendants’ jeep. While travelling in the vehicle, one of the wheel screws came loose, causing the jeep to crash and resulting in the death of one of the plaintiffs. The court held that the defence of volenti non fit injuria would apply, and thus, the defendants were not liable, as the plaintiffs had assumed the risk of potential injury by riding in the jeep.

Limitations of volenti non fit injuria

The principle of volenti non fit injuria is a fundamental doctrine in tort law that applies in situations where a person willingly exposes themselves to a known danger or harm. It is based on the concept that if a person voluntarily assumes the risk associated with an activity, they cannot later claim compensation for any injury or harm that results from that activity. However, there are limitations to the application of this principle in certain situations.

Rescue Cases

The defence referred to in this question is likely the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria, which is a legal principle that states that a person who voluntarily assumes the risk of harm cannot subsequently claim damages for that harm.

Rescue cases are generally considered to be an exception to this defence. This is because, in rescue cases, the person who enters a dangerous situation to save another person is not considered to have voluntarily assumed the risk of harm. Instead, the rescuer’s actions are seen as reasonable and necessary, and they are typically not barred from recovering damages for any injuries they sustain.

An example of a rescue case that illustrates this principle is a situation where a bystander jumps into a river to save a drowning child. In this scenario, the bystander is not considered to have voluntarily assumed the risk of harm, as their actions were motivated by a desire to help another person. If the bystander is injured during the rescue attempt, they may be able to bring a claim for damages against any parties who were responsible for the dangerous situation, such as the owner of the property or the person who created the hazard.

Another example of a rescue case might involve a firefighter who enters a burning building to save people trapped inside. In this scenario, the firefighter’s actions are also considered to be reasonable and necessary, and they would not be barred from bringing a claim for damages if they were injured while performing their duties.

In both of these examples, the rescuers are not considered to have assumed the risk of harm, as their actions were taken in order to save another person’s life or prevent harm. As such, they would generally not be precluded from recovering damages based on the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria.

The case of Haynes v. Harwood (1935), 1 KB 146, involved a servant of the defendant who brought two horses into town near a police station, leaving them unattended to perform other work. When the horses became agitated by children, they broke free. The plaintiff, a police officer, attempted to stop the horses and was injured in the process. He subsequently brought a case against the owner for damages. The court found the defendant liable, as the defence of volenti non fit injuria did not apply in this rescue scenario.

Illegal Acts

The legal principle referred to in this question is likely the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria, which is a defence in tort law that holds that a person who voluntarily assumes the risk of harm cannot subsequently claim damages for that harm.

One exception to the application of this defence is when the harm that results from the plaintiff’s conduct is the result of an illegal act. In such cases, the defendant may still be held liable for any injuries that the plaintiff suffers, regardless of whether the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of harm.

For example, suppose a person engages in illegal street racing and crashes their car, sustaining injuries as a result. The other driver involved in the accident may still be held liable for any injuries that the illegal street racer suffers, even if the illegal street racer voluntarily assumed the risk of harm by engaging in illegal activity. This is because the defendant’s conduct in engaging in street racing was also illegal and was a contributing factor to the accident.

Another example of this exception could be where a person trespasses on another’s property and is injured by a hazard on the property. In this scenario, the defendant may still be held liable for any injuries that the trespasser suffers, even if the trespasser voluntarily assumed the risk of harm by entering the property without permission. This is because the defendant’s failure to ensure the safety of their property, despite knowing that trespassers might enter, was a contributing factor to the injury.

Negligence of the defendant

The legal principle referred to in this question is likely the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria, which is a defence in tort law that holds that a person who voluntarily assumes the risk of harm cannot subsequently claim damages for that harm.

One exception to the application of this defence is when the harm suffered by the plaintiff is a result of the defendant’s own negligence. If the defendant’s negligence contributes to the plaintiff’s injury, the plaintiff may still be able to recover damages, even if they voluntarily assumed the risk of harm.

For example, suppose a person agrees to go bungee jumping and signs a waiver acknowledging the risks of the activity. If the bungee jumping company fails to properly secure the equipment, causing the person to fall and sustain injuries, the company may be liable for the person’s injuries, even if the person voluntarily assumed the risk of harm. This is because the company’s negligence in failing to properly secure the equipment was a contributing factor to the person’s injury.

Similarly, if a person agrees to participate in a contact sport and signs a waiver acknowledging the risks of injury, but the opposing team engages in illegal or reckless conduct, causing the person to sustain injuries, the opposing team may be liable for the person’s injuries, even if the person voluntarily assumed the risk of harm. This is because the opposing team’s negligence or intentional misconduct was a contributing factor to the person’s injury.

Volenti Non Fit Injuria And Contributory Negligence

Volenti non fit injuria and contributory negligence are two different legal concepts in tort law, although they are sometimes confused with each other. Both concepts relate to a plaintiff’s conduct in relation to their own injury, but they differ in their application and legal consequences.

Volenti non fit injuria is a defence that may be raised by a defendant in a tort action. It holds that a plaintiff who voluntarily assumes the risk of harm cannot subsequently claim damages for that harm. In other words, if a plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily undertakes an activity that carries a risk of harm and is injured as a result, they cannot hold another party liable for their injuries.

Contributory negligence, on the other hand, is a doctrine that can operate as a complete defence to a tort claim. It arises when the plaintiff’s own negligence contributes to their injury. If a plaintiff’s own negligence contributes to their injury, they may be barred from recovering any damages from the defendant.

The key distinction between the two concepts is that volenti non fit injuria involves the plaintiff’s voluntary assumption of a known risk, while contributory negligence involves the plaintiff’s failure to exercise reasonable care for their own safety.

For example, suppose a person goes skiing and signs a waiver acknowledging the risks of the activity, including the risk of collisions with other skiers. If the person is injured in a collision with another skier, they may not be able to recover damages from the other skier based on the defence of volenti non fit injuria, as they voluntarily assumed the risk of injury. However, if the person was not wearing a helmet at the time of the collision, they may also be found to have contributed to their own injuries through their own negligence, and may be barred from recovering damages from the other skier based on contributory negligence.

Conclusion

The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria is an important legal principle in tort law that limits a plaintiff’s ability to recover damages for the harm they voluntarily assumed. The doctrine applies where the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily undertakes an activity that carries a risk of harm, and the harm suffered is a result of that activity. 

However, there are exceptions to this defence, including where the harm is a result of the defendant’s own negligence, where the plaintiff is acting to rescue another person, and where the activity in question is illegal.