Volenti Non fit Injuria is a Latin maxim that roughly translates to "to a willing person, injury is not done."
In other words, if a person has given proper consent for an act, he cannot later claim damages for any injuries that happen because of the act.
For example, if a landlord has duly leased a house, he is deemed to have given consent for the tenant to enter the premises and he cannot later sue the tenant for trespass, as long as the terms of the lease are not violated. Here there is express consent.
Or, when a delivery person - it might be food, courier or post - enters the compound of a house - the person is deemed to have the right to enter the premises. Here the consent is implied - when the order is placed.
Here, the delivery person cannot be sued if he enters the premises to the extent that is absolutely essential - like entering the compound - and coming up to the main door to ring the bell
But if he enters into the inner parts of the house without explicit permission, he is exceeding the limits of implied consent and can be sued.
So, consent can be express - like in the case of a landlord - or consent can be implied - like in the case of a delivery person.
And for the consent to be valid, the person who is giving consent must have knowledge of the risk; and should have voluntarily accepted the risk.
The other important points to remember about consent are
- If the act that led to the injury itself is illegal, then consent does not matter. The Plaintiff can sue, even if voluntary consent was given
- The Consent must have been given freely, without any undue influence, coercion, fraud, misrepresentation or by mistake.
- Just having a knowledge of the risk is not the same as giving consent or acceptance of the risk. The consent must be given explicitly or implicitly.
- Even if consent was given, the maxim will not apply if due care is not exercised or the proper process is not followed during the act
Volenti Non-Fit Injuria will not apply in all cases. Even if all the requirements are fulfilled, there are some exceptions.
Employment Injuries: Workers' compensation laws often override this doctrine, as employees might be exposed to risks inherently, but do not explicitly consent to injury.
Rescue Situations: If someone is injured while attempting to save another person from harm, the maxim does not apply, because the rescuer did not consent to the injury.
If a person accepts lift from a drunk driver, the maxim does not apply. Since the act of driving while being drunk itself is illegal, the consent of the passengers does not matter
If the act which caused the injury was due to a breach of a statutory duty, then again, the consent of the plaintiff does not matter.
In cases where applying the doctrine would be against public policy, courts may refuse to apply it.
And also, if all the risks associated with an activity were not disclosed, then the plaintiff would not have full knowledge, so this principle does not apply.
In Padmavati v. Dugganaika - two individuals who were unauthorized passengers in a jeep died when the vehicle met with an accident.
The court held that since the passengers voluntarily took the risk of traveling in the jeep, volenti non fit injuria was applicable in favour of the defence, and the plaintiffs could not claim compensation.
In Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club - A spectator was killed when a car left the track during a race.
The court held that the spectator had voluntarily assumed the risk of such an accident by attending the race, thereby applying the principle of ‘volenti non fit injuria’.
In Lakshmi Rajan v. Malar Hospital - the defense argued that the patient consented to the surgical procedure understanding its risks.
However, the court found Malar Hospital liable for inadequate service and unauthorised medical intervention.
The court determined that first of all, Lakshmi Rajan’s consent was obtained under duress and even then, the consent did not extend to the removal of her uterus.
Therefore, volenti non fit injuria could not be claimed as a defence.
19 сен 2024
