VOLENTI NON-FIT INJURIA

 ABSTRACT

Trespassing, battery, assault, malicious prosecution, defamation, and other actions are all examples of torts. However, there are various defences that can be used to escape tort liability, including "act of God," "plaintiff is the wrongdoer," "inevitable accident," and many others. "Voleni-non-fit-injuria" is one such defence against any tortious act. This essay discusses the idea, background, special case, and intricacies of "Volenti-Non-Fit-Injuria."

Keywords

 Volenti Non-Fit Injuria, Torts, consent, fraud, harm, wrong.

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’. According to Salmond, "Tort is a civil wrong for which the reme dy is common law action for unliquidated damages and which is not exclusively the breach of contract or the breach of a trust or other merely equitable obligation."”

When the plaintiff files a lawsuit against the defendant for a certain tort, the defendant is liable for the same tort if all the necessary elements are present. However, By using the available defences, the defendant may be able to avoid culpability in some circumstances. These defences are divided into two different categories i.e., General Defences and Specific Defences. 

General Defences are those which are available for several wrongs whereas Specific defences are available for a particular specific tort to which it relates. For example, defence of consent (Volenti non-fit injuria) may be taken for trespass, defamation and many other wrongs hence it is General Defence. The lists of General Defence available for the tort committed by the defendant to avoid his/her liability are as follows:

1. Volenti non-fit injuria

2. Inevitable accident

3. Act of God

4. Private Defence

5. Necessity

6. Mistake

7. Plaintiff, the wrongdoer

8. Statutory Authority

Objective of the research 

This research work analyses the defence of consent i.e., Volenti non-fit injuria in Detail.

Hypothesis

The author believes that by the end of the paper we will conclude that the doctrine of volenti non fit enjuria is assumed a crucial role in the general defence.

Research questions

1. What is the doctrine of VOLENTI NON-FIT INJURIA?
2. How to prove that the consent of the defendant was free and was not influenced by anything

Research methodology 

The authors collected secondary data from various sources such as websites, articles, journal articles, encyclopaedias as well as documentaries. The authors then compiled the information and presented it.

MEANING 

The doctrine of Volenti non-fit injuria means, "to a willing person, no injury is done". It means if a person willingly consents to the infliction of harm upon itself, he/she is not entitled to get any remedy under the Law of torts. Any harm suffered voluntarily by anyone does not amount to legal injury and the same is not actionable by the law of torts. In cases where the plaintiff gives his consent to suffer some harm upon himself in such cases, he is not entitled to remedies and his consent acts as a good defence for the defendants.

Eg: B was invited to A's house for supper, so here A cannot file a trespassing claim against B. As A has inflicted some harm upon himself voluntarily. The agreed-upon limit must not be exceeded by any act that causes injury, it must be remembered. Football players implicitly agree to injuries as part of the game, but it does not preclude them from bringing a claim for an injury that was intentionally caused by another player. The defendants must demonstrate that the plaintiff was fully aware of the danger involved and its scope in order for the defence to be effective. Simply being aware of the risk is insufficient; the plaintiff must consent to suffering that harm.

Essential elements of Volenti non-fit injuria

• Free Consent

“To have this defence available it is important to prove that the consent of the defendant was free and was not influenced by anything. If the consent of the plaintiff has been obtained by fraud or under compulsion or some mistaken impression, such consent does not serve as a good defence.” Additionally, Both the action taken and the permission granted must match.

For example: “If a guest is requested to sit in a drawing-room and without any authority or justification, he enters the bedroom, he would be liable for trespass and he cannot take the defence of your consent to his visit to your house.”

• Consent must not be obtained by fraud

A fraudulently obtained consent is not a strong defence. However, a simple lie may not constitute a fraud severe enough to invalidate permission.

• Consent must not be obtained under compulsion

In some circumstances, a person does not have the autonomy to make their own decisions, and any permission given in such circumstances is invalid. For instance, a person might be forced by a circumstance to deliberately take a risk that, given the option, he would not have done.

These kinds of issues frequently occur in master-servant relationships. In most cases, servants must choose between taking on the dangerous activity and keeping their job. If the servant agrees to perform the dangerous task in this case, It does not necessarily follow that he consented to bear the costs associated with the risky task.

• The defendant must not be negligent

The typical assumption is that the defendant won't be irresponsible when the plaintiff agrees to take some risks. The law of Volenti non-fit injuria is inapplicable if the defendant was negligent in any way, and he can be held accountable for the act. For instance, if a patient consents to surgery and the procedure is unsuccessful due to the surgeon's negligence, the surgeon may be held accountable because the patient did not consent to the negligence of the surgeon.

• Mere Knowledge does not imply assent

The defendants must establish two key facts in order for the Volenti non-fit Injuria doctrine to be applied correctly. In other words, the victim knew there was a risk and granted permission for the harm to happen. If the plaintiff was simply informed of the risk and refused to provide his consent, the Volenti non-fit Injuria defence cannot be employed. In other words, just because the plaintiff was aware of the harm does not imply that they authorised it to happen.

Limitations of the Doctrine

• Rescue Cases

The defendant cannot use the Volenti non-fit Injuria defence when the plaintiff voluntarily takes a risk to save someone from a danger that the defendants' negligence has caused. For instance, A voluntarily dove into a well to save B after B fell victim to C's carelessness. A sued C after sustaining some personal injuries while rescuing B. Here, C is unable to assert the defence of Volenti non-fit Injuria and will be held responsible for the injury.

• Illegal Acts

Any unlawful act cannot be made legal with consent. Volenti non-fit injuria is one of the main exceptions to this rule. Even if all other requirements are fully satisfied, the defence of Volenti non-fit Injuria cannot be used.

For instance, if A shoots B and B says he was okay with it, A cannot get away with it. A is not permitted to use the Volenti non-fit injuria defence. Simply put, the defence of Volenti non-fit injuria cannot be used to defend any illegal or unlawful act.

• Breach of Statutory Duty

“This doctrine is not applicable in a situation where action relies on the breach of statutory duty. This limitation was clearly explained in Wheeler v. New Merton Boards ltd.”  In this case, the defendants placed a hazardous machine for use by the workers in a production plant. The factory and workshop act of 1901 states that the machine must be walled in and maintained. A worker in this case who is the plaintiff was hurt while doing his employment duties as a result of its poor condition. For the same claim, the plaintiff sued the defendants. The court ruled that when there is a statutory duty breach on the part of the employer, the maxim volenti non fit injuria is not a defence to a personal injury claim against the employer.

Landmark Cases of Volenti non-fit Injuria

• Padmavati v. Dugganika

“In this case, a driver gave a lift to two strangers in a jeep while going for a petrol filling.  Suddenly one of the bolts fixing the right front wheel to the axle came out and the Jeep went out of control resulting in the accident. Both the strangers were tossed away and one of them died while the other suffered serious injuries.

It was held by the court that the defendants cannot be held liable for the act as it was a sheer accident and the plaintiff voluntarily entered into a Jeep. Hence, the defense of Volenti non-fit injuria can be successfully pleaded.”

• Woolridge v. Sumner

“In this case, a photographer hereafter called Plaintiff was at a Horse show and was just standing in the boundary of the arena. Suddenly one of the Horses in the show hastily took around due to which the plaintiff was frightened and fell into the arena. Due to which he suffered serious injuries.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for the injury suffered.

The court held that defendant was not liable as Plaintiff impliedly gave his consent to the risk involved. Hence the defense of Volenti non-fit Injuria was successfully pleaded.”

• Thomas v. Quartermaine

“In this case, the defendant owned a brewery and the plaintiff was an employer in his brewery. In an instance, while trying to remove the lid from a boiling tank, the lid got tightly stuck and he applied extra force to pull the lid out. Due to that extra force, he was tossed into a container that was filled with very hot liquid and suffered serious injuries.

The plaintiff sued the defendant but the court held that the defendant was not liable as the risk was visible and the plaintiff voluntarily took that risk. Hence, the defence of Volenti non-fit injuria was successfully pleaded.”

• Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club

“This case is somewhat similar to the Woolridge case. In this case, was a spectator at a car racing event that was organized on the track which was owned by the defendant’s company. During the course of the race, a collision occurred between cars, and the plaintiff was injured as one of the cars landed on the spectators.

The plaintiff sued the defendant’s claiming compensation. It was held by the court that the plaintiff gave implied consent for taking the risks. Hence, the defendant was not made liable and the defence of Volenti non-fit Injuria was successfully pleaded.”

• R v. Williams

“In this case, the accused was a music teacher and he obtained the consent of her student by fraud. He raped a 16-year girl student under the pretence that this act of sexual intercourse was an operation to improve her voice. Here the victim misunderstood the nature of the act as she gave her consent in the belief that the act was a kind of surgical operation.

The court found the accused guilty of rape and the defence of Volenti non-fit injuria was discarde d by the court”

CONCLUSION & SUGGESTION

In law of torts, the volenti non-fit injuria doctrine assumes a crucial role in the general defence. By demonstrating that the plaintiff gave their consent voluntarily, defendants can use this concept to escape culpability. However, there are some requirements that must be met for the concept to be successfully applied.

To sum up, the justification of this concept is partial in character and has a narrow focus. In some cases, such as where the defendant is insignificant, the application of Volenti non-fit Injuria can be disregarded. Other restrictions not already specified in the text exist. Overall, the Volenti non-fit injuria defence is a fairly effective way to avoid liability.