A brief study on the concept “volenti non fit injuria”
Article By: Bhanupriya Sharma
Abstract
volenti non fit injuria, a fundamental principle which translates “to a willing person, no injury is done.”
The doctrine serve as defence in tort law. In this article we will delve into the historical developments and judicial interpretation pf volenti non fit injuria and how it is differentiated from other justifications or excuses in torts. The doctrine serve as defence for defendant asserting that no legal wrong has occurred if the plaintiff has consented voluntarily for the inherent risk in a particular activity.
Introduction
Voluntary non fit injuria is a fundamental principle in tort law, originating from Latin, meaning “to a willing person,No injury is done.” It serves as a defence in cases where the claimant has voluntarily accepted the risk of harm. This doctrine essentially asserts that one cannot claim damages for harm, they have consented to, but the consent must be free I.e., not influenced.
Historical Evolution
The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria, emerged in medieval time’s english common law and was firmly established in 19th century. Since tort was first introduced in england and based on common sense, therefore it is not codified yet. It’s Evolution reflects the common laws recognition. The maxim too based on common sense that if a person has consented for the particular act then the other party is not liable for the harm which was known to the plaintiff.
Essentials of volenti non fit injuria:
For the applicability of this legal maxim, two key elements must be established:
- Knowledge of the risk
The plaintiff must have the knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk involved.
- Voluntary consent
The plaintiff must have consented voluntarily without any coercion, undue influence, fraud or misrepresentation otherwise the same would not be entertained.
Application
The scope of the maxim is not limited, with the evolution of time the concept is expanding or including more applications. One common context is sports. For example, Spectators at a cricket match are aware of the potential danger of being hit by a ball. By choosing to attend, they accept the inherent risk, meaning they cannot sue for injuries caused by normal foreseeable accidents during the game. Similarly, participants in extreme sports such as Sky diving, accept the risk involved in these activities.
Modern application
The doctrine’s scope has expanded to encompass contemporary scenarios.
- Digital and virtual reality experiences: participants
Of augmented reality games assume certain risks, like potential physical injuries from environmental hazards while using technology.
- Medical procedures:
informed consent in medical procedures, ensure patients understand and accept treatment risks.
- Social media challenges:
While using social media, the users have given implied consent as they know the challenges involved in social media.
Important case:
Smith v Baker (1891)
In the given case, the plaintiff had been injured while working near dangerous machinery. Although, he was aware of the risk, the court ruled that mere knowledge of the risk does not equate to voluntary consent.
The case highlighted the importance of the differentiation that must be done between the two essentials – (i) knowledge of the risk,and (ii) free will.
Here the plaintiff has the knowledge of risk involved but had no real choice but to work under hazardous conditions and thus the defense of volenti non fit injuria failed.
Intersection with related legal principles:
1.Contributory negligence:
Despite the distinction, both doctrines may apply in cases where claimant’s conduct contributed to their injury.
2.Public policy override:
In certain cases , public policy considerations may prevent the application of the doctrine, particularly in employment relationships or essential services.
Limitations of volenti non fit injuria:
Despite being a strong defence, Volenti Non Fit Injuria has its limitations.It cannot be used in situations where:
1.The consent was obtained through coercion.
2. The harm resulted from negligence or intentional misconduct.
3. The claimant Had no real alternative but to face the risk, as in some employment situations.
Exceptions.
1.Rescue Cases
The rescue case is one of the exceptions to the applicability of the doctrine of Volenti non-fit injuria. Under this head, when the plaintiff willingly faces a risk to rescue someone from the danger which has been created by the wrongful acts of defendants then the defendant cannot take the defense of Volenti non-fit Injuria. For example, A voluntarily jumped into a well to save B, B had fallen due to the negligence of C. A while saving B suffered some personal injuries and sued C for the same. Here C cannot take a defense of Volenti non-fit Injuria and will be liable for the same.
2.illegal acts:
No consent can legalise illegal acts.
Moreover, in cases involving statutory duties, Where the duty of care owed, the defence is not applicable. For example , an employer cannot claim that an employee voluntarily accepted risks inherent in their job if the employer failed to provide a safe working environment.
Contemporary Challenges.
1.Data privacy: The question arise regarding whether users truly consent to data collection and usage risk when using digital services.
2. Gig economy: The doctrines application using modern employment relationships , particularly regarding independent contractors and platform workers raises novel legal questions.
Conclusion
Now, after the study of the legal maxim “ volenti non Fit injuria” we can conclude tha it is critical defense in tort law, which is evolving to meet the contemporary challenges and adapting the modern contexts. The scope of this maxim is getting Increase with the development and evolution of tort.
The doctrine Serves it’s purpose of protecting both individual autonomy and public interest. The emerging forms of risk assumption demonstrates it’s continuing relevance in modern jurisprudence.
Bibliography:
https://www.freelaw.in/legalarticles
Book R.K Bangia
Book: S.K Kapoor’s law of torts.
Leave a Reply