volenti non fit injuria for CLAT - Practice Questions & MCQ

Read the following passage and the question.

Volenti non fit injuria-It basically means the voluntary assumption of risk. When a person consents to the infliction of harm upon himself, he has no remedy for that in tort, making this an excellent defence for the defendant against tortious liability. Consent forms an essential part of this doctrine- whether it is implied or expressed. It must not be obtained fraudulently (as held in R. v. Williams).This doctrine is based on the idea that “no man can enforce a right that he himself has waived or voluntarily abandoned”. However, the harm caused must not be beyond what is consented to. In case, a plaintiff voluntarily suffers some harm, he has no remedy for that under the law of tort and he is not allowed to complain about the same. The reason behind this defence is that no one can enforce a right that he has voluntarily abandoned or waived. Consent to suffer harm can be expressed or implied. 
The consent must be free, For this defence to be available it is important to show that the consent of the plaintiff was freely given. Consent obtained by fraud is not real consent and does not serve as a good defence. Consent obtained under compulsion There is no consent when someone consents to an act without free will or under some compulsion. It is also applicable in cases where the person giving consent does not have full freedom to decide. This situation generally arises in a master-servant relationship where the servant is compelled to do everything that his master asks him to do. The defense of Volenti non fit injuria is also not applicable in cases of negligence as the basic constituent of the doctrine is consent- whether implied or expressed. But, if due to some act of the defendant, the plaintiff is not left with ample time to choose to provide consent or not, there can be no agreement to suffer harm from the said act. 

Question - Rishi took his car to fill the petrol in it. Two strangers named Neeraj and Ali took a lift in the car. The car got toppled due to some problem with the wheel. Neeraj and Ali fell out of the car and they suffered some injuries leading to the death of Ali. What is the liability of Rishi?

Read the following passage and the question.

Volenti non fit injuria-It basically means the voluntary assumption of risk. When a person consents to the infliction of harm upon himself, he has no remedy for that in tort, making this an excellent defence for the defendant against tortious liability. Consent forms an essential part of this doctrine- whether it is implied or expressed. It must not be obtained fraudulently (as held in R. v. Williams).This doctrine is based on the idea that “no man can enforce a right that he himself has waived or voluntarily abandoned”. However, the harm caused must not be beyond what is consented to. In case, a plaintiff voluntarily suffers some harm, he has no remedy for that under the law of tort and he is not allowed to complain about the same. The reason behind this defence is that no one can enforce a right that he has voluntarily abandoned or waived. Consent to suffer harm can be expressed or implied. 
The consent must be free, For this defence to be available it is important to show that the consent of the plaintiff was freely given. Consent obtained by fraud is not real consent and does not serve as a good defence. Consent obtained under compulsion There is no consent when someone consents to an act without free will or under some compulsion. It is also applicable in cases where the person giving consent does not have full freedom to decide. This situation generally arises in a master-servant relationship where the servant is compelled to do everything that his master asks him to do. The defense of Volenti non fit injuria is also not applicable in cases of negligence as the basic constituent of the doctrine is consent- whether implied or expressed. But, if due to some act of the defendant, the plaintiff is not left with ample time to choose to provide consent or not, there can be no agreement to suffer harm from the said act. 

Question - Abha, a renowned academician has recently got a lot of public attention on social media. A famous production house offered Abha money to give them the right to document her life. When the show got aired Abha sued the production house for revealing some parts of her life which caused her trouble. Here-

Read the given passage very carefully and answer the question.

An agency arrangement is a form of general contract. As such, except where the agency is irrevocable, an agency can terminate in the same way as a contract is discharged. Only the act or consent of the parties to the agency or the enforcement of the law may terminate the relationship between the principal and the agent. “In the absence of anything to prove its termination, an agency, when proven to have existed, will be presumed to have continued, unless such a length of time has elapsed as destroys the presumption.” When an entity is dissolved, the obligation of the agent to work on behalf of the principal comes to an end. A government law or instrument may stipulate the timeline for the termination of an entity.

In such a case, if the instrument states in clear and unambiguous terms that after the expiry of the time stated in the instrument, an agency shall terminate without intervention on the part of the principal or administrator, the agency shall, in effect, terminate. If the parties maintain their partnership as principal and agent after the expiry of the duration given in the contract, a substantiated assumption is posed that their relationship is regulated by the original contract and that the contract is extended for a similar term. For example, where the parties entered into a contract for a year and proceeded to behave after one year under the contractual conditions, the court would conclude that the parties genuinely wanted to hold the contract alive for a period of time.

On the other hand, if no reasonable deadline has been set by the parties for the expiration of the contract, the contract is assumed to have been terminated after a reasonable period of time. “The nature of the act specifically authorised, the formality of the authorisation, the likelihood of changes in the purposes of the principal, and other factors shall determine what constitutes a reasonable period of time during which the authority continues.” In comparison, the burden of proving an agency’s termination or revocation lies with the agency.

Question

XX was YY’s agent. YY empowered XX to deal with matters on his behalf, all parties with which XX entered into contracts are held to have the right to hold YY accountable until YY notifies the world that the authority of XX is removed but he intended to retain the contract on his own account in a specific situation. Can XX do so?

Read the following passage and answer the question

Volenti non fit injuria-It basically means the voluntary assumption of risk. When a person consents to the infliction of harm upon himself, he has no remedy for that in tort making this an excellent defence for the defendant against tortuous liability. Consent forms an essential part of this doctrine- whether it is implied or expressed. It must not be obtained fraudulently (as held in R. v. Williams).

This doctrine is based on the idea that “no man can enforce a right that he himself has waived or voluntarily abandoned”. However, the harm caused must not be beyond what is consented to. In case, a plaintiff voluntarily suffers some harm, he has no remedy for that under the law of tort and he is not allowed to complain about the same. The reason behind this defence is that no one can enforce a right that he has voluntarily abandoned or waived. Consent to suffer harm can be express or implied. 

The consent must be free, For this defence to be available it is important to show that the consent of the plaintiff was freely given. Consent obtained by fraud is not real consent and does not serve as a good defence. Consent obtained under compulsion There is no consent when someone consents to an act without free will or under some compulsion. It is also applicable in cases where the person giving consent does not have full freedom to decide. This situation generally arises in a master-servant relationship where the servant is compelled to do everything that his master asks him to do. The defense of Volenti non fit injuria is also not applicable in cases of negligence as the basic constituent of the doctrine is consent- whether implied or expressed. But, if due to some act of the defendant, the plaintiff is not left with ample time to choose to provide consent or not, there can be no agreement to suffer harm from the said act.

Question

Abha a renowned academician recently got a lot of public attention on social media. A famous production house offered Abha money to give them the right to document her life. When the show got aired Abha sued the production house for revealing some parts of her life which caused her trouble. Here-

Read the following passage and answer the question

Volenti non fit injuria-It basically means the voluntary assumption of risk. When a person consents to the infliction of harm upon himself, he has no remedy for that in tort making this an excellent defence for the defendant against tortuous liability. Consent forms an essential part of this doctrine- whether it is implied or expressed. It must not be obtained fraudulently (as held in R. v. Williams).

This doctrine is based on the idea that “no man can enforce a right that he himself has waived or voluntarily abandoned”. However, the harm caused must not be beyond what is consented to. In case, a plaintiff voluntarily suffers some harm, he has no remedy for that under the law of tort and he is not allowed to complain about the same. The reason behind this defence is that no one can enforce a right that he has voluntarily abandoned or waived. Consent to suffer harm can be express or implied. 

The consent must be free, For this defence to be available it is important to show that the consent of the plaintiff was freely given. Consent obtained by fraud is not real consent and does not serve as a good defence. Consent obtained under compulsion There is no consent when someone consents to an act without free will or under some compulsion. It is also applicable in cases where the person giving consent does not have full freedom to decide. This situation generally arises in a master-servant relationship where the servant is compelled to do everything that his master asks him to do. The defense of Volenti non fit injuria is also not applicable in cases of negligence as the basic constituent of the doctrine is consent- whether implied or expressed. But, if due to some act of the defendant, the plaintiff is not left with ample time to choose to provide consent or not, there can be no agreement to suffer harm from the said act.

Question

Rajani a 54-year-old woman complained of sharp pain in her chest area and also noticed woman noticed a lump in her breast. After the medical treatment, she got to know that her uterus has been removed. Here-

Read the given passage very carefully and answer the questions.

It has often been discussed whether the law of torts in India is necessary or not. The courts in India have often taken the stand that Tort law is essential in India and is conducive to the growth and development of society. The courts and the government have recognized the importance of torts in their rulings by rewarding exemplary damages in case of negligence, providing compensation to the victims of rape, and recognizing governmental torts i.e. torts by government employees. However, the knowledge of Torts and its use is not very popular among the general public, primarily because it is not codified. It is hence essential to highlight the basic principles and concepts of Torts so that a person can understand his rights and liabilities under the Tort laws. The Supreme Court of India has through its numerous landmark judgements helped shape the law of Torts in India. It has also been observed a number of times, that there is a need to codify the law of Tort in order to facilitate its greater use. The principles of Torts have also been applied in newer legislations such as the

Environment Protection Act, 1986, The Consumer Protection Act 1986, The Human Rights Protection Act 1988, The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, it is still observed that the branch of Torts as a whole is still growing and developing in India as compared to the development of Torts in countries like the UK and the USA.

According to John Salmond, He addresses tort as being only a civil wrong which has unliquidated damages (those damages for which there is no fixed amount) in the form of remedy and which is not just exclusively the breach of contract or the breach of trust or breach of merely fair and impartial obligation. According to Richard Dien Winfield, Tortious liability emerges from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by the law, this duty is towards the other people generally and its breach is redressible by an action for unliquidated damages.

According to Fraser, A tort is an infringement of a right in rent of a private individual giving a right of compensation at the suit of the injured party.

Three essential elements which constitute a tort are :

·         A Wrongful act or omission, and Duty imposed by the law.

·         The act must give rise to legal or actual damage, and

·       It should be of such a nature that it should give rise to a legal remedy in the form of an action for damages.

Question: Virendra is watching a cricket match from atop a tree just outside the stadium. The batsman, Mahendra hits the ball hard and the ball flies over the boundary and hurts him back. Can Virendra claim damages from either the batsman or the stadium authorities?

Passage 

Read the following passage and answer the question

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 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) There 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 that 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 a 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 that the defendant’s breach of duty had induced. 

Question

Mr. A and B were going to the marriage ceremony by car. A returned his car after reaching the destination. C was driving the car and picked F and G as the customer to drop them at their destination for the consideration of 500 rupees. The car travelled for a few minutes and met with an accident due to brake failure. C, along with F and G were seriously injured in such an accident. F and G sued A with C for compensation. Decide. 

Passage 

Read the following passage and answer the question

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 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) There 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 that 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 a 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 that the defendant’s breach of duty had induced. 

Question

Which of the following is not an Act of volenti non fit injuria?

I.      Watching the Jalli-kattu tournament and getting hit by the bull.

II.     Watching the cricket tournament, one of the ceiling’s pillars fell on the audience.

III.    Participated in a bike-racing tournament and met with an accident because another bike collided with you.

Passage 

Read the following passage and answer the question

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 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) There 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 that 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 a 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 that the defendant’s breach of duty had induced. 

Question

A's horse is out of control and is galloping towards a busy street. B realises that if the horse reaches the street it will hurt many people and so he bravely goes and control's the horse. He is injured in doing so and sue's A for damages. Decide. 

John works for Austin in a field. John is operating a big machine which has certain dangers arising out of it, even after being warned by Austin several times and knowing that there were certain dangers associated with the machine John kept on operating such machine and got injuries. can john sue Austin for the injuries that are caused ?