{"id":6028,"date":"2015-03-27T07:27:43","date_gmt":"2015-03-27T01:57:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/?p=6028"},"modified":"2023-07-01T15:53:30","modified_gmt":"2023-07-01T15:53:30","slug":"volenti-non-fit-injuria-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/volenti-non-fit-injuria-2.html","title":{"rendered":"Volenti non fit injuria"},"content":{"rendered":"

Mahima Gherani<\/strong><\/p>\n

Volenti non fit injuria <\/em>is a Latin term which means \u201cto one who is willing, no harm is done.\u201d This doctrine holds that a person who knowingly and willingly puts himself in a dangerous situation cannot later on sue for any resulting injuries. Volenti non fit injuria<\/em> is a defence in tort. If a person engages in an event accepting and being totally aware of the risks inherent in that event, then such person cannot later complain of, or seek compensation for an injury suffered during the event.<\/p>\n

For example you invite somebody to your house you cannot sue him for trespass. For the defence to be valid it is necessary that the consent was obtained voluntarily by the plaintiff and there was no undue influence, misrepresentation or fraud involved. In the case of\u00a0R<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>v. Williams<\/em> 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 but he was actually having sexual intercourse with her. It was held that her consent was vitiated by fraud. This case has been used to illustrate the validity of a consent which has been obtained by unfair means.<\/p>\n

In Lakshmi Rajan v. Malar Hospital<\/em> (1998), a woman consented for a surgery to remove a lump from her breast. But the hospital removed her uterus without any genuine reason. It was held that removing of her uterus exceeded beyond what she had consented for and thus the hospital was held liable for the deficiency of service. In another instance, if a servant was compelled by the master to do a certain task despite his protests, and if he is injured while doing it, the master cannot take the defence of volenti non fit injuria<\/em> because the consent was not free. For the defence to be valid it is necessary that the consent was obtained voluntarily by the plaintiff and there was no undue influence, misrepresentation or fraud involved. The defence of\u00a0volenti non fit injuria<\/em>\u00a0requires a\u00a0freely entered and voluntary agreement by the claimant, in full knowledge of the circumstances,\u00a0to absolve the defendant of all legal consequences of their actions.<\/p>\n

For the defence to be available, the act causing the harm must go beyond the limit of what has been consented. The two essentials that are to be satisfied are<\/p>\n