Question Details

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.


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?

Options

A

Lily will be liable to pay compensation to Karan.

B

Lily has not committed a tort against Karan by exceeding her right of private defence.

C

Karan’s case does not fall within volenti non fit injuria.

D

Karan had knowledge of the spring guns and wilfully courted the danger himself.

Show Answer

Correct Answer :

Option D

Karan had knowledge of the spring guns and wilfully courted the danger himself.

Solution :

The correct option is Karan had knowledge of the spring guns and wilfully courted the danger himself.


Step-by-Step Explanation:


1. Understanding the Maxim Volenti Non Fit Injuria:
The legal maxim volenti non fit injuria states that harm suffered voluntarily does not constitute a legal injury and is not actionable. If a person voluntarily exposes themselves to a known risk with free consent and full awareness, they cannot hold another party liable for any resulting harm.


2. Application to the Given Scenario:
In the given case:

  • Lily set up spring guns on her property for garden protection.
  • Karan trespassed onto Lily's land with full knowledge that spring guns were placed somewhere in the wood.
  • Despite having full knowledge of the inherent danger, Karan chose to trespass and consequently suffered an injury.


3. Conclusion:
Because Karan acted voluntarily and with complete knowledge of the presence of the dangerous spring guns, he freely assumed the risk of injury. Therefore, the principle of volenti non fit injuria applies, as Karan had knowledge of the danger and wilfully courted it himself.

Unlock Our Free Library

Access expert-curated educational resources and study materials—completely free.

Discover more resources

You may also like

Mock Tests

View All
  • CLAT
  • intermediate
  • 2 hours
  • current affairs, general knowledge, legal reasoning, logical reasoning, quant

  • CLAT
  • intermediate
  • 2 hours
  • current affairs, english, general knowledge, legal reasoning, logical reasoning, quant

Ask AI Tutor
5 left
Q1 View Question & Options
AI Tutor is solving this question...
Reading question context & options...