Volenti Non Fit Injuria | Consent | Types | Essentials | Cases

Volenti Non Fit Injuria | Consent | Types | Essentials | Cases

Volenti Non Fit Injuria | Consent | Types | Essentials | Cases

Volenti Non Fit Injuria

Volenti non fit injuria is a Latin legal term that translates to "to a willing person, injury is not done." In the context of tort law, it refers to the principle or defense that absolves a defendant from liability when the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risk associated with a particular activity or situation. In other words, if the plaintiff consents to the potential dangers and willingly exposes themselves to harm, they cannot later claim damages for injuries resulting from that activity or situation. The presence of genuine consent, free from coercion or misrepresentation, is a crucial element for the successful application of this defense.

Basically if you allow someone and you are being harmed then their will be no compensation.

Essentials of Volenti Non Fit Injuria

Plantiff knows that the risk is their.
Plantiff knows that the risk is their and agree to suffer the harm.


Consent is a voluntary and informed agreement.

Types of Consent:

1. Express Consent

Express consent is explicitly and clearly stated, either verbally or in writing. It leaves no doubt about the individual's willingness to participate or agree to a specific request or action.

 Basically it is a oral and written consent given by the defendent.

2. Implied Consent

Implied consent is not explicitly stated but inferred from a person's actions, conduct, or the circumstances of a situation. It suggests that the individual is willing to proceed without expressing their consent verbally or in writing.

Basically it is neither oral nor written consent.

Essentials of Consent

Concent must be free no force , no fraud


Dann v Hamilton 

In this case a lady knowing the driver was drunk chose to travel in it . due to the driver negligent driving an accident occured which resulted in the death of the driver and injuries to the lady and an action for the damages the defendant took the supplication/plea of volenti non fit injuria.

the plea was denied by the court and it was observed thar the level of intoxication was not much. so,it cannot be apprehended that driver may cause and accident. Although the lady know a drunken state, she didn't not consent to the injury.

hall v. brooklands auto racing club.

In this case the plantiff was a spectator at a motor car race being held at brooklands on  a truck owned by the defendant. during the race a Collision between Cars led to injury to the plantiff and the defendant took the defense of Consent. The defense was granted and it was observed that the Plaintiff impliedly took the risk as the sport was intrinsically hazardous.therefore judgement goes in the favour of defendant held no liable.

In Smith V Baker & Sons.

In this case the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant, and the site Where he used to work had a Crane that Carried rocks. over their heads. The Plaintiff had also Complained to the defendant about it. One day plaintiff was injured because of these rocks falling on him and thus he sued the defendant for damages. It was held that the defendant was liable and had to pay damages because the Plaintiff had Consented to the danger of the job but not to the lack of Care.

Post a Comment