DistinctioH

1) Velenti Non Fit Injuria n Contributory Negligence:

Meaning: "Volenti non fit injuria" is a Latin phrase that trunslates to "to a witling person, no injury is
done."

Principle: This defense states that if a person willingly and knowingly consents to a risk or danger,
they cannot later claim that they sufered an injury as a result of that risk.
Application: It applies when the plaintiff voluntarily assumes the risk associated with an activity or
situation and is aware of the potential harn involved.

Elements: For the defense to succeed, the defendant must establish that the plaintiff had ful
knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk and voluntarily accepted it.
Effect: If the defense is successfully proven, the defendant is relieved of liability, and the plaintiff's
claim for damages is likely to be rejected.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE:

Principle: Contributory negligence refers to the situation where the plaintifr's own negligence
contributes to their injury or loss.
Application: It applies when the plaintiff fails to exercise reasonable care for their own safety and that
failure contributes to the harm they suffer.
Elements: To establish contributory negligence, the defendant must prove that the plaintiff breached
their duty of care and that this breach contributed to the injury.

Effect: In jurisdictions that follow the doctrine of contributory negligence, even if the defendant is
also negligent, the plaintiff's contributory negligence may bar or reduce their recovery. In some
jurisdictions, the principle of contributory negligence has been modified or replaced by comparative
negligence, which apportions damages based on the respective degrees of fault.
In summary, "volenti non fit injuria" refers to the defense that a willing person cannot claim injury
when they have voluntarily assumed a known risk. On the other hand, "contributory negligence"
relates to the situation where the plaintiff's own negligence contributes to their injury. potentially
reducing or barring their recovery.
2. Tortious Liability n Contractual Liability:
> Arises from a breach of duty imposed by law.
º Based on the principles of negligence or intentional misconduct.
º Duty owed is generally to society at large or individuals in general.
º Can exist even in the absence of a formal agreement or contract between the parties.
> Compensation is awarded to the injured party for the harm or loss suffered.
> Generally governed by common law principles and judicial decisions.
> Examples include personal injury claims, defamation, and negligence claims.
 Contractual Liability:
Arises from a breach of duty imposcd by a contract.
> Basecd on the terms and obligations set forth in a legally binding agreement.
Duty owed is specific to the terms and conditions of the contract.
Exists when there is a valid contract between the parties.
Remedies for breach of contract may include damages, specific performance, or other
contractual remedies.
Generally govemed by the terms of the contract and applicable contract law principles.
Examples include failure to perform contractual obligations, brcach of warranty, and non
payment of contractual amounts.
In summary, tortious liability relates to legal obligations imposcd by law, regardless
of the existence of a contract, while contractual liability arises from the breach of duties
outlined in a contractual agreement. Tortious liability is based on principles of negligence or
intentional misconduct, whereas contractual liability is based on the terms and conditions of a
contract.

3. MALICE IN LAW N MALICE IN FACT:

Malice In Law:

Malice in law, also known legal malice or implied malice, is a legal concept.
It is not based on the defendant's actual intent or state of mind.
> It refers to the absence of legal justification or excuse for the defendant's actions.
Malice in law can be presumed or implied by the law in certain torts, regardless of the
defendant's actual intent.
The focus is on the wrongful act itself rather than the defendant's subjective intent.
Malice in Fact:

Malice in fact, also known as actual malice, refers to the defendant's actual ill-will, hatred, or
harmful intent.
Itinvolves the defendant's deliberate and conscious desire to cause harm, injury, or damage to
another person.
Malice in fact requires proof of the defendant's specific intent to cause harm.
It is relevant in intentional torts where the plaintiff seeks to demonstrate the defendant's
malicious motives.
The focus is on the defendant's subjective state of mind and their actual intent to cause harm.
> In summary, the key distinction between malice in law and malice in fact lies in the basis of
liability. Malice in law is based on the wrongful act itself and the absence of legal
justification, while malice in fact is based on the defendant's actual ill-will or harmful intent.
Malice in law can be presumed by the law, while malice in fact requires proof of the
defendant's specific intent.
4. Liquidated Damages n Unliquidated Damages:

Liquidated damages are damages that are predetermined or agreed upon by the parties in
advance.
bc awardcd in
They are specificd in a contract or agrecment as the amount of compensation to
the event of' a breach.
harm that may
The predetermincd amount represents a reasonable cstimation of the actual
result from the brcach.
Liquidated damages clauses are enforceable if they are a genuine pre-cstimatc of the
anticipated loss and not a penalty
> The injured party is entitled to receive the predetermined amount of damages without having
to prove the actual loss suffered.
involved.
> Liquidated damages provide certainty and predictability for the parties

Unliquidated Damages:
> Unliquidated damages are damages that are not predetermined or pre-agreed upon by the
parties.
> They are determined by the court based on the actual harm or loss suffered by the injured
party.
> In cases where the amount of damages cannot be readily ascetained or quantified, the court
determines the appropriate compensation.
The injured party has the burden of proving the extent of the harm or loss and providing
evidence to support their claim.
Unliquidated damages are typically awarded in cases where there is no pre-existing
agreement or when the actual harm cannot be precisely quantified.
> The court considers various factors, such as the nature of the harm, the extent of the injury,
and any mitigating circumstances, in deternining the amount of damages.
In summary, liquidated damages are predetermined and agreed upon by the parties in
advance, while unliquidated damages are determined by the court based on the actual harm
suffered. Liquidated damages provide a specific and predetermined amount of compensation,
whereas unliquidated damages are assessed by the court based on the evidence presented.

5. Damnum Sine Injuria n Injuria Sine Damno:

> Damnum sine injuria translates to "loss without injury."

It refers to a situation where there is an actual loss or damage sufered by the plaintiff, but there is no
legal injury.
In other words, it signifies a loss or harm that does not violate a legal right of the plaintifr.
> The defendant's actions may cause some inconvenience, annoyance, or loss, but they are not recognized
as a legal wrong.
Damnum sine injuria may occur when the defendant exercises a legal right or pursues a lawful activity.
The plaintiff may have suflered a loss, but there is no corresponding violation of their legal rights, and
therefore no actionable claim arises.
Injuria Sine Danmno:

> Injuria sine damno translates to "injury without loss."

> Itrefers to a situation where there is a violation of a legal right or injury suflered by the plaintiff, even
though there may not be any actual loss or damuge.
> Injuria sine damno recognizes that a plaintifT can have a valid claim cven without demonstrating any
quantifiable loss,
The focus is on the infringement of a legal right, such as the right to privacy, reputation, or personal
security, rcgardless ofany tangible harm.
The plaintiffcan seck legal remedies and compensation for the injury suffered, cven if there is no
accompanying financial loss or damage.

In summary, damnum sine injuria pertains to a situation where there is a loss suffercd by the
plaintiff, but no legal injury or violation of their rights. Injuria sine damno, on the other hand, refers to
an injury or violation of a legal right suffered by the plaintifl, even if there is no accompanying
financial loss or damage.

6. Inevitable Accident n Act of God:

An inevitable accident refers to an event or occurrence that happens without any fault or negligence on
thc part of any person involved.
It involves a situation where, despite exercising reasonable care and caution, the incident could not
have been avoided.
In an inevitable accidentL the cause of the harm is purely accidental and unforesccable.
It is a defense that absolves the defendunt from liability because the harm or injury was not the result of
any negligent or intentional act
The burden of proof lies with the defendant to demonstrate that the incident was truly an incvitable
accident.

Act of God:
An act of God, also known as force majeure or vis major, refers to a natural event or occurrence that is
bevond human control or influence.
It involves extraordinary and unforesceable events caused by natural forces, such as carthquakes,
hurricanes, floods, or lightning strikes.
An act of God is considered an external and intervening event that interrupts the chain of causation and
relieves the defendant of liability.
It is adefense that acknowledges that the harm or damage was causcd by an event that no human could
have reasonably anticipated or prevented.
The burden of proof lies with the defendant lo establish that the event was a true act of God and that
their actions were not a contributing factor to the harm.
In summary, an inevitable accident refers to an occurrence that is unavoidable despite reasonable care.
while an act of God pertains to a natural event beyond human control. In an inevitable accident, the
focus is on the absence of fault or negligence, whereas an act of God centers on the external and
unforeseeable nature of the event. Both defenses can relieve the defendant of liability in certain
circumstances.
 IMPORTANT MAXIM:

This maxim applies when the facts of

Res ipsa loquitur: "The thing spcaks for itsclf."
without direct evidence. It allows the
the case imply negligence or wrongdoing, cven of the incident.
court to infer negligence based on the nature
donc." This maxim asserts
Volenti non fit injuria: "To a willing person, no injury is
activity, they cannot later
that ifa person willingly assumes the risk or consents to an
claim damages for any harm sufered as a result.
Injuria sinc damno: "Injury without damage." This maxim recognizes that a pcrson
can have a valid claim for injury or violation of a legal right, even if there is no
a
accompanying financial loss or tangible damage.
> Actio personalis moritur cum persona: "A personal action dies with the person." This
maxim signifies that a personal claim or cause of action extinguishes upon the death
of the person who had the right to bring the claim.
> Causa causans: "The cause of the cause." This maxim emphasizes the importance of
identifying the true and effective cause of the harm or injury when determining
liability. It requires tracing the chain of causation back to the initial and significant
cause.
> In pari delicto: "In equal fault." This maxim signifies that when both parties
are
equally at fault or involved in wrongful conduct, the law may refuse to grant relief to
either party.
Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa: "No one should be ajudge in their own
cause." This maxim upholds the principle of natural justice, stating that a person
cannot be ajudge in a case where they have a personal interest, ensuring impartiality
and fairness.
> Qui facit per alium facit per se: "He who acts through another acts himself." This
maxim holds that a person who acts through another person is cqually responsible for
the consequences of that action.
> Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea: "The act does not make a person guilty unless
the mind is also guilty." This maxim highlights the principle that a person should not
be held liable for a wrongful act unless they possess the necessary mental state or
intention to commit the act.
> In dubio pro reo: "In doubt, for the defendant." This maxim emphasizes that if there is
doubt or uncertainty regarding a defendant's liability, the decision should be made in
favor of the defendant, ensuring that they are not wrongly held liable.
Ex turpicausa non oritur actio: "No action arises from a base cause." This maxim
states that a person cannot bring a legal claim or action if it arises from their own
illegal or immoral conduct.
> Respondeat superior: "Let the master answer." This maxim holds that an employer or
principal is responsible for the acts or omissions of their employees or agents that
occur within the scope of their employment or agency.
> Injuria absque damno: "Injury without damage." This maxim recognizes that even if
there is no actual financial loss or damage, a person can still have a valid claim for the
violation of their legal rights.