Introduction
Volenti non-fit Injuria is a general exception in law of torts, quite popularly as defenses or justification are a collection of excuses undertaken to escape liability in the law of torts. This maxim helps in getting out in to while fulfilling certain criteria needs to be fulfilled. Effectively it can be addressed ‘as the rules of immunity which limit the rules of liability’[1]. There are various conditions in which one present will prevent an act from being wrongful which in their absence would be wrong. Under these conditions, an act is said to be excused and whenever an act is said in general to be wrongful it is assumed that no such qualifying condition exists these justifications or exceptions from civil liability for acts prima facia wrongful or based principally upon public grounds.
Elements
Volenti non-fit Injuria is thus harm suffered voluntarily which does not constitute a legal injury and is not actionable per se. This principle is embodied in the Latin maxim itself because a man cannot complain of harm to the chances of which he has exposed himself with knowledge and of his free will, making the maxim based upon the grounds of good sense and justice. In a nutshell, the maxim proposes and presupposes a tortious act by the defendant. For example, a trespasser having knowledge that there are spring guns in the world although he may be ignorant of the particular spots where they are placed cannot maintain an action for an injury received in consequence of his accidentally treading on the latent wire communicating with the gun and thereby letting it off for he voluntarily exposes himself to the measures which had happened. But a person who climbs a wall in pursuit of Austria fool and his shot by a spring onset without notice can recover damage.
Thence for the defense of VNFI, it becomes mandatory that the plaint has the knowledge of the risk and there is a voluntary assent to that risk else the only knowledge being there would vitiate the consent part giving rise to the conditions popularly known as Scenti non-fit injuria. For instance in Smith v. Baker & sons, (1891) AC 325 there was an employee who worked for his employer at the site which had the work of carrying rocks overhead by means of cranes. One fine day the plaint was injured when one such crane broke and the rock hit him, the employer was sued who invoked the defense of volenti non-fit injuria, however, the court invoked Scenti non-fit injuria as there was a mere knowledge and no consent.
The perfectly sound principle underlying this maxim is daily illustrated in common life e.g. it protects the surgeon amputates the limb of the football player, boxer and a fencer so long as they play fairly according to the rules of the game as the application of this maxim is not limited by any valid contract but upon the competence of the decision-making capacity of the person at that time the consent was given. So a minor who is capable of making a reasonable assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of treatment proposed by a physician or a surgeon can give a valid consent.
The whole idea of voluntary non-fit injuria applies to the area of medical sciences thereby to avoid a claim for personal injury against a doctor it has been noticed and most of the people say that it is not necessary that the consent should be informed consent meaning thereby an objective criterion of what is a sufficient disclosure of rest to ensure that the patient is enabled to make an intelligent decision, secondly, the voluntary non-fit injuria plays a very important role while deciding the liability of the management staff during some unfortunate events happening during the 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 any act of participant done in the cause of and for the purposes of the game or competition North bit understanding that such act may involve an error of judgment or lapse of skin unless the participants conduct is such as to events are reckless disregard of the spectator’s safety.
Conclusion
This maxim is limited by the approach has no consent legalize an unlawful act such as fighting with naked swords, moreover, the maxim does not apply where the plaintive has under an exigency caused by the defendant’s wrongful misconduct consciously and deliberately face Doris even of death to rescue another from Eminem danger of personal injury or death would ask you another from Eminem danger of personal injury or death whether the person endangered is one to whom he was the activity of protection as a member of the family, or is a mere stranger to whom he owes no such special duty and lastly the maxim does not apply to the cases of negligence as for that to happen the defense should be based upon implied agreement amounting to contract. Thus subject to restrictions and limitations the courts have always to be careful while applying for this maxim as this poses more of unknown danger rather than protection
References:
[1] FREDERIK POLLOCK, The law of torts, 15th edition, p.78
0 Comments