PrepTarget PrepTarget
Login Register Free
Menu
Mock Test →
Previous Year Papers →

Harm suffered voluntarily does not constitute a legal injury and is not…

CLAT 2021 · Legal Reasoning · 5 questions

Harm suffered voluntarily does not constitute a legal injury and is not actionable. This principle is embodied in the maxim volenti non fit injuria. A person cannot complain of harm to the chances of which he has exposed himself with his free consent and free will. The maxim volenti non fit injuria is founded on good sense and justice. A person who has invited or assented to an act being done towards him cannot, when he suffers from it, complain of it as a wrong. The maxim presupposes a tortious act by the defendant. The maxim applies, in the first place, to intentional acts which would otherwise be tortious. There are certain limitations to the application of this maxim: (i) It is no answer to a claim made by a workman against his employer for injury caused through a breach by the employer of a duty imposed upon him by a statute. But where the negligence or breach of statutory duty is on the part of an employee of the plaintiff who knowingly accepts the risk flowing from such breach and the employer-defendant is not guilty of negligence or breach of statutory duty, the defence of volenti non fit injuria is available to the defendant. (ii) Under an exigency caused by the defendant's wrongful misconduct, consciously and deliberately faced a risk, even of death, whether the person endangered is one to whom he owes a duty of protection, as a member of his family, or is a mere stranger to whom he owes no such special duty. The rescuer will not be deprived of his remedy merely because the risk which he runs is not the same as that run by the person whom he rescues. But where there is no need to take any risk, the person suffering harm in doing so cannot recover. (iii) To cover a case of negligence the defence on the basis of the maxim must be based on implied agreement whether amounting to contract or not. The defence is available only when the plaintiff freely and voluntarily, with full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk impliedly agreed to incur it and to waive any claim for injury. But when the plaintiff has no choice or when the notice is given at a stage when it is beyond the ability of the plaintiff to make a choice there can be no implied agreement and the defence on the basis of the maxim must fail. (iv) The maxim will also not apply when the act relied upon is done because of the psychological condition which the defendant's breach of duty had induced.

Question 1

Mr. A was the owner of a car and he had a driver- Mr. D. On January 19, 2021, Mr. A and Mr. D were travelling in their car wherein Mr. A got down at a restaurant and told Mr. D to take the car back to Mr. A's bungalow. Mr. D was filling the petrol tank of the car, and two strangers- Mr. B and Mr. C took a lift from Mr. D in his car. The car went ahead and the right-side front wheel of the car flew away, the car toppled and Mr. D and Mr. C were thrown out. Mr. C sustained severe injuries and ultimately died due to those injuries on January 20, 2021. Mr. B and legal representatives of Mr. C claimed compensation from Mr. A and Mr. D.
  1. A. Mr. D will be liable to pay the compensation.
  2. B. Volenti non fit injuria will be applicable and no compensation can be claimed.
  3. C. Volenti non fit injuria will not be applicable and compensation can be claimed.
  4. D. Mr. A and Mr. D both will be liable to pay the compensation.

Practise this question and check your answer →

Question 2

Rama was a spectator at a motor car race being held on a track owned by the defendant company. During the race, there was a collision between two cars, one of the cars was thrown among the spectators, thereby injuring Rama severely. Which of the following statements is correct?
  1. A. Rama impliedly took the risk of such injury, the danger being inherent in the sport which any spectator could foresee, the defendant was not liable.
  2. B. It was a negligence on the part of defendant and volenti non fit injuria will be applicable.
  3. C. Rama did not take the risk of such injury, and she only consented to watching the race and hence the defendant was liable.
  4. D. Rama was negligent and hence she suffered injuries.

Practise this question and check your answer →

Question 3

Which of the following is correct about consent in volenti non fit injuria?
  1. A. Knowledge of the risk does not always amount to consent.
  2. B. Knowledge of a risk does not precede consent.
  3. C. Knowledge of the risk always amounts to consent.
  4. D. Mere perception of the existence of danger amounts to consent.

Practise this question and check your answer →

Question 4

Lily had placed spring guns in a wood on her ground for the protection of the garden. Karan, with full knowledge that there were spring guns somewhere in the wood, trespassed on the land of Lily and was injured. Which of the following statements is correct?
  1. A. Lily will be liable to pay compensation to Karan.
  2. B. Lily has not committed a tort against Karan by exceeding her right of private defence.
  3. C. Karan's case does not fall within volenti non fit injuria.
  4. D. Karan had knowledge of the spring guns and wilfully courted the danger himself.

Practise this question and check your answer →

Question 5

Which of the following is not an element to claim the defence of volenti non fit Injuria?
  1. A. Prior knowledge of the plaintiff about the risk involved.
  2. B. Free consent.
  3. C. Plaintiff is compelled to agree to a risk by the defendant.
  4. D. Voluntary acceptance of the risk by the plaintiff.

Practise this question and check your answer →

More from this paper: all CLAT 2021 questions →