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.
Which of the following is correct about consent in volenti non fit injuria?
Correct Answer :
Knowledge of the risk does not always amount to consent.
Solution :
The correct answer is Knowledge of the risk does not always amount to consent.
Explanation and Legal Reasoning:
The legal maxim volenti non fit injuria dictates that harm suffered voluntarily does not constitute an actionable legal injury. For this defence to succeed, it must be proved that the plaintiff freely and voluntarily, with full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk, agreed to incur it and waive any claim for injury.
As highlighted under limitation (iii) in the provided text:
1. Mere knowledge or perception of the existence of danger does not automatically mean that a person has consented to take the risk (scienti non fit injuria is not equivalent to volenti non fit injuria).
2. If the plaintiff has no real choice or if the risk is presented when they cannot freely exercise their choice, there is no implied agreement to assume the risk.
Therefore, having knowledge of a risk does not always amount to legal consent to suffer the harm resulting from that risk.
Access expert-curated educational resources and study materials—completely free.
Create, conduct, and manage professional online assessments with Mindyard. Perfect for teachers and institutes.
Copyright © 2026 Mindyard. All Rights Reserved.