volenti non fit injuria
Harm suffered voluntarily does not constitute a legal injury and hence, is not actionable. This principle has been embod...
Volenti non fit injuria: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS1
DR.RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW
ACADEMIC SESSION: 2013-14
LAW OF TORTS : FINAL DRAFT TOPIC: ‘Volenti non fit injuria’ :A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Mrs. Gitu Singh
Asst. Professor (Law)
B.A. L.L.B. (Hons.)
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National
Law University, Lucknow
Roll No: 85
Volenti non fit injuria: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS2
Section: B ACKNOWLEDGEMENT It feels great pleasure in submitting this research project to Mrs. Gitu Singh, Asst. Professor (Law) without whose guidance this project would not have been completed successfully. Secondly, I would like to express my gratitude towards Prof. Gurdip Singh, Vice Chancellor and Prof. (Dr.) C. M. Jariwala, Professor, Dean Academics for their support and encouragement. Next, I would like to sincerely thank my seniors, whose suggestions and guidance assisted me throughout the entire tenure of making the project. Last but not the least, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude towards my parents and friends who guided me and helped me at every possible step.
Prachi Verma B. A. LLB. (Hons.) 1st semester Roll. No. 85
Volenti non fit injuria: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................2 THE DOCTRINE : MEANING AND IMPLICATIONS......................................................3 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE DOCTRINE.................................................................4 CONSENT : MEANING AND TYPES.....................................................................................5 EXPRESS CONSENT...........................................................................................................5 IMPLIED CONSENT...........................................................................................................6 FREE CONSENT......................................................................................................................8 Consent obtained by fraud...................................................................................................8 Consent obtained under compulsion...................................................................................8 KNOWLEDGE DOES NOT NECESSARILY IMPLY ASSENT...........................................10 LIMITATIONS OF THE DOCTRINE.....................................................................................12 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................15
Volenti non fit injuria: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS4
INTRODUCTION The word “tort” is derived from the Latin word ‘tortum’ which means ‘to twist’. It implies that conduct which is twisted, crooked or unlawful or that which is not straight. It is the same as the English term ‘wrong’. The law of torts as administered in India in modern times is the English law as found suitable to Indian conditions and as modified by the Acts of the Indian Legislature. Its origin is linked with the establishment of British Courts in India. 1 The English law is selectively applied in India as rules of justice, equity and good conscience. Tort may be defined as a civil wrong which is redressible by an action for unliquidated damages and which is other than a mere breach of contract or breach of trust. Defining tort Salmond says, “It is a civil wrong for which remedy is a common law action for unliquidated damages and which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of trust or other merely equitable obligation”. On the other hand, according to Winfield,” Tortiuous liability arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by the law: this duty is towards persons generally and its breach is redressible by an action for unliquidated damages.”2 Examples of torts include trespass to land, trespass to person (includes malicious prosecution, assault and battery), negligence, defamation and nuisance. When the plaintiff files a suit against the defendant for some tort, claiming damages, on the condition that all the essentials of that tort are present, the defendant would be liable for it. Even in such a situation, the defendant might escape his liability. This can be done by taking plea of some defence. These defences may include volenti non fit injuria, act of God, plaintiff’s own fault, statutory authority, act of state etc. Harm suffered voluntarily does not constitute a legal injury and hence, is not actionable. This principle has been embodied in the maxim volenti non fit injuria which literally means that “to which a man consents, cannot be complained of as an injury”. The claimant is not allowed to complain of harm to the chances of which he 1 Justice G. P. Singh, “Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s The Law of Torts”, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 25th edn., Reprint 2009, Pg. No. 1. 2 Dr. R.K. Bangia ,”Law of Torts”, Allahabad Law Agency, 22nd edn., 2012, Pg No. 4.
Volenti non fit injuria: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS5 has exposed himself with knowledge and of his free will and for this reason, his consent proves to be a really good defence against him.
THE DOCTRINE : MEANING AND IMPLICATIONS ‘Volenti non fit injuria’ [Latin: ‘to the consenting, no injury is done’ 3] is a common law doctrine which states that if someone willingly places himself/herself in a position where harm might result, having the full knowledge that some degree of harm might result, then he/she cannot bring a claim against the other party in tort. The doctrine only applies to the risk which a reasonable person could have considered to have been present having assumed by his/her actions. Harm suffered voluntarily does not constitute a legal injury and is not actionable. One cannot enforce a right which he has voluntarily waived or abandoned. If the assent is to the infliction of harm on or, at any rate, to the use of the plaintiff’s property, such assent is more usually styled as “leave and license” of the plaintiff. It is suggested by some people that the more appropriate maxim should have been volenti non fit periculam injuria, meaning “to the person who is willing, the danger of injury does not arise”, as it refers more particularly to personal injuries. For the defence of volenti non fit injuria to be available, the act causing the harm must not go beyond the limit of what has been consented. In case a person is incapable of giving his/her consent because of insanity or minority, then consent of such person’s parent or guardian is sufficient to make the doctrine available as a defence. For the defence to be available, it has to be proved by the defendant that the plaintiff was fully aware of the risks involved, which included, both the nature of risk as well as the extent of the risk. Secondly, the plaintiff should have had either expressly (by statement or in writing) or impliedly (by his actions) consented to waive all claims for damages. It must also be noticed that during the application of the maxim mere knowledge of the risk involved does not mean that consent was there, that is, sciens non est volens (“knowing is not volunteering”). The presence of free consent is necessary. It is clear that consent may be implied from conduct as
3 http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Volenti+non+fit+injuria [last accessed on: 5/10/2013]
Volenti non fit injuria: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS6 well as expressed in words so that the defendant escapes liability if he was justified in inferring that the claimant consented even though, secretly, he did not. 4
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE DOCTRINE For the defence of volenti non fit injuria to be applicable, the following essentials must be present:
There should be an agreement. The agreement should have been entered into voluntarily. The agreement should have been made in full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk involved.
1. There should be an agreement. An agreement should have been entered into in the first place for the defence to be applicable. The agreement may be express or implied. An example of an express agreement would be where there exists a contractual term or notice. However, this would be subject to the controls of s.2 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. An implied agreement may exist where the claimant's action in the circumstances demonstrates a willingness to accept not only the physical risks but also the legal risks.5 2. The agreement should have been entered into voluntarily. For the defence to be available, it is necessary to show that the plaintiff consented to the act done by the defendant. This consent should be free and should not be the one obtained by fraud or under compulsion. The agreement must have been voluntary and freely entered into. 3. The agreement should have been made in full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk involved in the act. The consent must have been given while knowing the extent of risk involved. For the defence of volenti non fit injuria to be applicable, the one claiming it (defendant) 4 W V H Rogers, “Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort”, Sweet & Maxwell Limited, London, 17th edn., 2006, Pg. No. 1059.
5 http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Volenti-non-fit-injuria.php [last accessed on: 05/10/2013]
Volenti non fit injuria: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS7 must prove that the plaintiff had the full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk involved. But mere knowledge does not imply assent. Having complete knowledge of the risk, the plaintiff should also have had agreed to suffer the harm.
CONSENT : MEANING AND TYPES The very essence of the defence of volenti non fit injuria lies in the presence of consent. Thus, consent is the most important requirement for this particular doctrine to be available as a defence in torts. In fact, the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria is itself referred to as the defence of ‘Consent’ many a times. When you invite a person to your house, you cannot in any case sue him for trespass. It is for the simple reason that you yourself had consented for it. You cannot claim for the enforcement of a right which you had voluntarily waived or abandoned. Also, the act done by the defendant must be the same for which the consent has been given. If a person is incapable of giving his consent because of insanity or he being minor, consent of his parent or guardian is sufficient. Consent can be of two types:
Express consent Implied consent
EXPRESS CONSENT: Express consent is the kind of consent which is not implied, but is clearly and unmistakably stated. Express consent may be oral or written. If risks are determined to be those on some grave matter, then consent is generally written. An example of express consent in written form is that of the agreements entered into before doing surgical operations. In such cases, you expressly consent to the risk involved in the operation through a written agreement. When a person invites others to enter into his premises, or allows others to take his goods, or submits to a surgical operation or medical treatment his consent is said to be express. In the case of Maung Sein v. Emperor6, Ma Thin On, with the full knowledge of the facts and with her own free will and choice, allowed an unqualified midwife named Daw So to 6 AIR 1935 Rang 471.
Volenti non fit injuria: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS8 attend the birth of a child to her. Ma Thin On died at childbirth. It was held that the defence of volenti non fit injuria was available to the midwife and Ma Thin On would not have been entitled to damages in a suit against Daw. This was a case of express consent. While, express consent was also witnessed in the case of R. v. Williams7, where the defendant was a singing coach. He told one of his pupils that he was performing an act to open her air passages to improve her singing. In fact he was having sexual intercourse with her. She gave the consent though it was held that her consent was vitiated by fraud as to the nature and quality of the act and thus, the defence was not given.
` IMPLIED CONSENT: Implied consent is a controversial form of consent which is not expressly granted by a person, but rather inferred from a person's actions and the facts and circumstances of a particular situation or in some cases, it might be inferred from a person's silence or inaction as well. It lies upon the reliance on interpreting one’s compliance as consent. An example could be seen in Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club 8, the plaintiff was a spectator at a motor car race being held at Brooklands on a track owned by the defendant company. During the race, there was a collision between the two cars, one of which was thrown among the spectators, thereby injuring the plaintiff. It was held that the plaintiff impliedly took the risk of such injury, the danger being inherent in the sport which any spectator could foresee, the defendant was not liable. As regards spectators at a game, the law has been stated to be as follows: “A person attending a game or competition takes the risk of any damage caused to him by an act of a participant done in the cause of and for the purposes of the game or competition notwithstanding that such act may involve an error of judgement or a 7 (1923) 1 KB 340. 8 (1932) All ER 208: (1932) 1 KB 205.
Volenti non fit injuria: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS9 lapse of skill, unless the participant’s conduct is such as to evince a reckless disregard of the spectator’s safety.”9 The facts in this case of Wooldridge v. Sumner went like this. The plaintiff, who was a photographer, was taking photographs at a horse show while he was standing at the boundary of the arena. One of the horses, belonging to the defendant, rounded the bend too fast. As the horse galloped furiously, the plaintiff was frightened and he fell into the horses’ course and there he was seriously injured by the galloping horse.10 The defence of volenti non fit injuria was applicable and was given to the defendant. In Padmavati v. Dugganaika11, while the driver was taking the jeep for filling petrol in the tank, two strangers took lift in the jeep. Suddenly one of the bolts fixing the right front wheel to the axle gave way toppling the jeep. The two strangers were thrown out, as a result of which they sustained injuries, and one of them died. It was held that neither the driver nor his master could be made liable, firstly, because it was a case of sheer accident and, secondly, the strangers had voluntarily got into the jeep which indicated implied consent on their part as to the possible risk that could have been involved after taking the lift and as such, the principle of volenti non fit injuria was applicable to this case.
9 Wooldridge v. Sumner (1962) 2 All ER 978. 10 http://notes-law.blogspot.in/2008/08/law-on-torts-part-1.html [last accessed on: 11/10/2013] 11 (1975) 1 Kam LJ 93.
Volenti non fit injuria: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS10
FREE CONSENT For the defence of volenti non fit injuria to be available, it also has to be proved necessarily that the plaintiff’s consent given to the act that was done by the defendant was free and not under any kind of undue influence. A consent that has been obtained by fraud or under compulsion or under some mistaken impression, imposition, coercion, influence of a drug or misrepresentation provides no help to the defendant in escaping his liability. Moreover, must
defendant In case a
person is incapable of giving his/her consent because of his/her insanity, then the consent of such person’s parent or guardian is sufficient. Consent obtained by fraud: Consent obtained by fraud is fake and as such it does extend no sort of help to the defendant in escaping his liability. Fraud itself vitiates consent. But mere concealment of facts might not be held as such a fraud as to vitiate one’s consent. In the case of R. v. Williams12, the accused, a music teacher, was held guilty of rape when he had sexual intercourse with a girl student of 16 years of age under the pretext that his act was an operation to improve her voice. Thus, the girl had consented to the act under the wrong impression that her teacher was performing some surgical operation and this was not considered to be a consent that could excuse the accused from his liability. Consent obtained under compulsion: When consent is given under the circumstances where the person does not have the freedom of choice and is forced to do so is not the proper consent. There may be a 12 (1923) 1 KB 340.
Volenti non fit injuria: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS11 situation where the person is knowingly compelled to undertake some risky work which, if he had free choice, he would not have undertaken. Such a case is generally witnessed in a master-servant relationship. “A man cannot be said to be truly willing unless he is in a position to choose freely, and freedom of choice predicates, not only full knowledge of the circumstances on which the exercise of choice is conditional, so that he may be able to choose wisely, but the absence of any feeling of constraint so that nothing shall interfere with the freedom of his will.” 13 In the case of Bowater v. Rowley Regis Corporation14, the plaintiff, a cart driver, was asked by the defendant’s foreman to drive a horse which to the knowledge of both was liable to bolt. The plaintiff protested but at the end submitted to what he had been asked to do. The horse bolted and the plaintiff was hurt in the process. It was held that the maxim of Volenti non fit injuria does not apply here and the plaintiff was entitled to recover. It was made clear in the same case by Goddard L.J. “that maxim of volenti non fit injuria is one which in case of master and servant is to be applied with great caution. It can hardly be applicable where the act to which the servant is said to be volens arises out of his ordinary duty, unless the work for which he is engaged is one in which danger is necessarily involved. A man, however, whose occupation is not one of a nature inherently dangerous but who is asked or required to undertake a risky operation is in a different position....it is not enough to show that whether under protest or not, he obeyed an order or complied with a request which he might have declined as one which he was not bound to obey or to comply with. It must be shown that he agreed that what risk there was should lie on him.”
13 Bowater v. Rowley Regis Corporation, (1944) KB 476, 479, PER Scott. LJ. 14 (1944) KB 476.
Volenti non fit injuria: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS12
KNOWLEDGE DOES NOT NECESSARILY IMPLY ASSENT
There is a minute distinction between assent and knowledge when it comes to the application of this particular doctrine. Knowledge does not necessarily imply assent. It has to be noted that the maxim is volenti non fit injuria and not, scienti non fit injuria. Mere knowledge of the impending wrongful act or the existence of a wrongfully caused danger does not in itself amount to consent even though no attempt is made by the plaintiff on his/her part to prevent or avoid that particular act of danger. Knowledge is not a conclusive defence in itself. But under such circumstances where knowledge itself implies that the risk had been voluntarily encountered, then the defence is complete. Just because one person had the knowledge of the risk involved does not imply that he consented to take the risk. For the maxim of volenti non fit injuria to apply, two points have to be proved:15 i. ii.
The plaintiff knew that the risk is there. He, knowing the same, agreed to suffer the harm.
In the leading case of Smith v. Baker16, the plaintiff was employed in the defendant’s stone quarry and had worked there for months with full knowledge of the fact that he was exposed to danger by reason of the negligent practice of the defendant in 15 Supranote 2 Pg. No. 37. 16 (1891) AC 325.
Volenti non fit injuria: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS13 swinging stones over the quarrymen’s heads by means of a crane. The plaintiff having been injured by the fall of the stone, it was held that his knowledge of and acquiescence in the danger did not per se prevent his recovering damages but were merely evidence for the jury on the question whether he had agreed to take the risk upon himself. Thus, knowledge of the risk and its acceptance are not one and the same thing. In the case of Yarmouth v. France17, the plaintiff, a carter had remonstrated to his master, the defendant, that the horse which he had been asked to drive was vicious and hence unfit for the purpose of the drive. Nevertheless, he was asked by the defendant to drive the horse and in doing so he sustained damage. In the action brought by the injured driver claiming damages from the defendant, the latter was held liable and his plea that the plaintiff should not have undertaken the drive was rejected. In a Madras case, South Indian Industrials v. Alamelu Ammal18, the defendants were carrying on the business of breaking up of cast iron by dropping of heavy weight on the iron as a result of which the broken pieces of cast iron used to fall at distance of 4 to 5 yards. One of those pieces struck the plaintiff standing at the distance of more than 70 yards. The defendant took the plea of volenti non fit injuria as the plaintiff was an employee. The defendant was held liable for he could not prove that the plaintiff fully appreciating the risk, had freely and voluntarily accepted the risk. In T.C. Balakrishnan Menon v. T.R. Subramaniam, 19 an explosive made out of a coconut shell filled with explosive substance, instead of
rising in the sky and
exploding there, ran at a tangent, fell amidst the crowd and exploded, causing serious injuries to the respondent. The minor represented by his father sued for damages on account of injuries sustained by him by the explosion. The lower court also found out that the accident was caused by the negligence of the defendant, the independent contractor. The defence of volenti non fit injuria in this case was not given. Certain 17 (1887) 19 QB 647. 18 (1932) 17 LW 495. 19 AIR 1968 Ker 151.
Volenti non fit injuria: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS14 area around the fireworks show had been cordoned. It was held that “If the first respondent entered the area within the cordon and sustained injuries, he might be considered to be a volunteer; but to argue that everyone who stood anywhere in the maidan, a very extensive and large area open to the public, is a volunteer, is to contend for something bordering on the preposterous.” Thus, the appeal was dismissed. It can be inferred from the decision that just because the plaintiff knew of the danger involved, it cannot be claimed that he had accepted and assumed the risk and that he was a volunteer. There was no actual consent and thus, the maxim volenti non fit injuria failed to apply.
LIMITATIONS OF THE DOCTRINE There are certain situations in which the scope of application of the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria has been curtailed. The limitations to the application of the doctrine are as follows:
When there is consent for an unlawful act, the doctrine comes nowhere in the picture. No consent can be said to have legalised an unlawful act. In the case of Lane v Holloway,20 the defendant, aged 23, owned a cafe close to where the claimant lived. The cafe was frequented by youths late at night. The claimant objected to the behaviour of the youths and the relations between the two were strained. One night, the claimant shouted abuse at the defendant's wife from outside their house. The defendant got up and went outside. The claimant, thinking he was about to be hit, punched the defendant. The defendant then struck the claimant in the eye, as a result of which he received eighteen stitches. It was held that neither volenti non fit injuria nor extur pi causa non oritur actio compensation for the injury.
20 (1967) 3 All ER 999(HL).
applied and the plaintiff was entitled to full
Volenti non fit injuria: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS15
The maxim does not apply when there is an action that is based on a breach of statutory duty. In the case of Wheeler v. New Merton Board Mills Ltd. 21, the defendants installed in their factory - as part of the plant with the intention that it should be used by their employees - a dangerous machine which was not fenced or guarded as required by the Factory and Workshop Act 1901. Owing to the condition of the machine the plaintiff, a workman in the employment of the defendants, was injured by it in the course of his work. It was found that it was not by the negligence of the defendants but of their foreman that the machine had been allowed to be used in the condition in which it was at the time of the accident. It was held by the trial judge that the defence of volenti non fit injuria had no validity against an action based on breach of statutory duty.
When the plaintiff voluntarily encounters a risk to rescue somebody from an imminent danger created by the wrongful act of the defendant, he cannot be met with the defence of volenti non fit injuria. In Haynes v. Harwood22, the defendants’ servant left a two horse van unattended on the street. A boy deliberately threw a stone on the horses and they bolted, causing grave danger to women and children on the road. A police constable, who was on duty in a nearby police station, on seeing the same, managed to stop the horses, but in doing so, he hurt himself and got some serious injuries. It being a rescue case the defendant was not able to use the defence of volenti non fit injuria and defendants were held liable. In the present case Greer L.J. adopting the American rule said that, “ The doctrine of the assumption of risk does not apply where the plaintiff has, under an exigency caused by the defendants wrongful misconduct, consciously and deliberately faced a risk, even of death, to rescue another eminent danger of personal injury or death whether the person endangered is one to whom he owes a duty of protection, as a member of his family, or is a mere stranger to whom he owes no such special duty.”
21 (1933) 2 KB 297. 22 (1935) 1 KB 146.
Volenti non fit injuria: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS16 In Baker v. T.E. Hopkins & Son Ltd. 23, Mr. Ward and Mr. Wileman were employed by the defendant, Hopkins. Due to the negligence of employer, a well got filled with poisonous fumes of a petrol driven pump and Mr. Ward and Mr. Wileman were overcome by the fumes. Dr. Baker was called but told not to enter the well due to the risk involved. Still, Dr. Baker went inside to seek to rescue the two. Unfortunately all three died of carbon monoxide poisoning.
compensation for her husband’s death. It was held that the act of rescuer was the natural and probable consequence of the defendant’s wrongful act which the latter could have foreseen, and therefore, the defence of volenti non fit
injuria was not given. For the defence of volenti non fit injuria to be available it is necessary to prove that defendant was not negligent in his conduct. When the plaintiff consents to take some risk, the presumption is that the defendant would not be negligent. For example, suppose the plaintiff had to undergo a surgery, he would have no right of action if the operation is unsuccessful, because the plaintiff had himself consented to risk. But he will surely have a right to action if that the operation became unsuccessful due to the negligence of the doctor. In Dann v. Hamilton24, the claimant was injured when she was a willing passenger in the car driven by the Mr Hamilton. He had been drinking and the car was involved in a serious crash which killed him. In a claim for damages the defendant raised the defence of volenti non fit injuria in that in accepting the lift knowing of his drunken condition she had voluntarily accepted the risk. The defence was not given and the claimant was entitled to
damages. The scope of the defence also stands curtailed when the act of the plaintiff for which the defence under the maxim has to be claimed is the same act which the defendant had a duty to prevent. In Kirkham v. Chief Constable of Greater Manchester25, Mr Kirkham was an alcoholic and suffered from
23 (1951) 1 WLR 966. 24 (1939) 1 KB 509. 25 (1990) 2 QB 283.
Volenti non fit injuria: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS17 depression. He had made two suicide attempts. He was admitted to hospital but discharged himself the following day. At home, he became violent. The police was called. His wife informed them of the whole situation and it was agreed that he should be remanded in custody for his own safety. However, the police failed to inform the prison authorities that Mr. Kirkham was a suicide risk. He committed suicide whilst on remand at Risley Remand Centre. His wife brought an action based on the negligence of the police in failing to pass on the information. The defence of volenti non fit injuria was not given to the police as the officers owed a greater duty of care and they had breached that duty; so the maxim was not applicable.
CONCLUSION Volenti non fit injuria is a Latin maxim which acquires the position of a good defence in tort law. It helps the defendant in escaping liability for the act done by him as the other person had consented, or at the least assented, to the doing of the act which caused his/her harm. The maxim, firstly, aids the defendant in avoiding liability for the intentional acts done which would otherwise had been tortious. Secondly, the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria applies when consent is given to run the risk of some harm which would otherwise have been actionable. Whenever the defence of volenti non fit injuria applies, it operates as a complete defence and thereby, absolving the defendant of all liability as the claimant had himself consented to run the risk of the harm that might have been caused in the course of action or due to it. The maxim comes into play as a defence only when all three of its essentials are present in the strict sense, that is, there should have been an agreement for the act
Volenti non fit injuria: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS18 done, the claimant should have had the full knowledge of the risks involved and also he/she should have ‘freely’ consented to run the risk involved. The implications of knowledge of risk involved and consent being free from any sort of duress are quite specific and defined. These are the areas failing in which the scope of the defence has stood curtailed many a times as discussed in the paper. The doctrine ‘volenti non fit injuria’ is an incomplete, though good defence in torts since its scope as a defence has got restricted many a times despite all the essentials being present. Conclusively, the defence of volenti non fit injuria is the one of limited application in tort law. The defendant’s negligence may rule out the application of the defence of volenti non fit injuria at times. At other times, the scope of the defence gets obstructed due to other limitations mentioned in the paper earlier. When the maxim operates, it helps the defendant in escaping liability completely and thus, overall volenti no fit injuria proves to be a good defence in torts.
Bangia, Dr. R. K., “Law of Torts”, Allahabad Law agency, Faridabad , 22nd edn., 2011.
Singh, Justice G. P., “Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s The Law of Torts”, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 25th edn., Reprint 2009.
McBride, Nicholas J, Roderick Bagshaw, “Tort Law”, Pearson Education, Delhi, 1st edn., 2003.
Rogers, W V H, “Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort”, Sweet & Maxwell Limited, London, 17th edn., 2006. WEBSITES:
Volenti non fit injuria: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS19