FACULTY OF LAW

JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

CONSENT AS DEFENCE
VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA

PRESENTED TO:
PROF. VARSHA GULAYA

PRESENTED BY: SAMEER B.A.LL.B.(Hons) SELF FINANCE

SEMESTER-I (2021-22) ROLL NO. 36 STUDENT ID: 202101657
 1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I iwould ilike ito iexpress imy ispecial ithanks iand igratitude ito imy imentor-teacher
iProfessor iVarsha iGulaya, iwho igave ime ithe igolden iopportunity ito iexpress imy
iviews ion ithe itopic iConsent ias iDefence: iVolenti inon ifit iinjuria. iWithout iher
iconstant isupport, ithis iproject iwould ihave ibeen ia idistant ireality.

I iwould ialso ilike ito iexpress imy ispecial ithanks ito ithe iDean iof ifaculty, iDr iEqbal
iHussain ifor their ithorough icounselling.

This iwork iis ian ioutcome iof ian iunparalleled isupport ithat iI ihave ireceived ifrom iThe
iFaculty iof iLaw, iJamia iMillia iIslamia

Thank iYou
 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr. No. Topic Page number

1 Introduction 3

2 Volenti non fit injuria 3

3 Essentials 5

4 Limitations 7

5 Conclusion 9

6 Bibliography 10
 3

Consent as Defence: Volenti non-fit injuria

INTRODUCTION

In ithe ilaw iof itorts, iif iany iperson icommits iany iwrongful iact iwhich icauses iinjury ito
ianother iperson, ihe iis iheld iliable iand ihas ito ipay idamages ior iprovide isome iother
iremedy iwhich ithe icourt idetermines, ito ithe ivictim iof isuch ian iact. There iis ia iduty
ion ievery iperson ido iacts iwith ireasonable icare iin iorder ito iavoid iany iharm iwhich
imay ioccur idue ito itheir ifailure iof itaking isuch icare. iFor ie.g., iIf ia iperson iis idriving
ihis icar, ihe ihas ia iduty ito idrive ithe icar isafely iand iwithin ispeed ilimits iso ithat ino
iaccident ioccurs iwhich ican ialso iharm iany iother iperson.

This iis ithe igeneral irule iin itorts ibut ithere iare icertain iexceptions iwhich iare iallowed
iin ithese icases iand ithese are icalled ias idefences ito itort. iUnder ithese idefences, ia
idefendant ican iescape iliability iand ivolenti inon ifit iinjuria iis ialso ione isuch idefence
iwhich iis iavailable ifor ithe idefendant.

VOLENTI iNON iFIT iINJURIA

Volenti inon ifit iinjuria imeans iwhen ia iperson ihas ivoluntarily iagreed ito iunder itake
irisk ifor iany iactivity ior isome iact ithat ithey ihave ivolunteered ifor. iWhen iapplied iit iis
ian iabsolute idefence ifrom iliability i. iThis idefence imakes iit ia irequirement ifor ithe
iclaimant ito ihave iagreed iout iof ifree iconsent i, ithere ishould ibe ian iagreement ibetween
ithe itwo iparties iregarding ithe isame. iThe iagreement imade ican ibe ieither iexpressed
iand iimplied. iThe iclaimant ishould ialso ibe imade iaware iof ithe irisks iand iits ifull
iknowledge iand iits iextent. iTo imake ia ivery isimple itranslation iof ithe iRoman iLaw
imaxim i‘volenti inon ifit iinjuria’, iit imeans ithat ithings isuffered ivoluntarily iare inot
ifit/deemed ito ibe ian iinjury; ior ian iinjury icannot iarise iout iof ia ivoluntary iact i(of ithe
iaggrieved iparty).
 4

This idefence iabsolves ithe itort-feasor ifrom iany iliability, iif iit iis iproved ithat ithe itort
iarose iout iof ian iinformed iand iwilful iact iof ithe iinjured iparty. iSo, iconsent iof ithe
iaggrieved iparty iforms ithe iessence iof ithis idefence. i

The idefence iof ivolenti inon ifit iinjuria ican ibe idenied iby ithe icourt iafter itaking iinto
iconsideration ithe ifacts iof ithe icase iand icircumstances iwith iregard ito ithe isame. iThe
idefence iof ivolenti inon ifit iinjuria icannot ibe igiven ito ithe idefendants iwhen ithe
iclaimant ihas inot ibeen iinformed iof ithe irisks iproperly ior ithe iagreement ihas ibeen
icoerced iusing iforce ior iany iother imeans ithat iare iillegal. i

It iis ia icommon ilaw idoctrine, iaccording ito iwhich ithe iperson iwho ivoluntarily igives
iconsent ifor iany iharm ito isuffer iwould inot ibe iliable ito iclaim iany idamages ifor ithe
isame iand ithis iconsent iserves ias ia igood idefence iagainst ithe iplaintiff. iThe iperson
iwho ihimself ivoluntarily iwaived ior iabandoned ihis iright icannot ihave iany iclaim iover
iit. iProvided ithis idoctrine iis ionly iapplicable ito ithe iextent ithat ia inormally iprudent
iperson iwould ihave iassumed ito ihave isuffered ithe irisk”. iIn ithe icase iof iKhimji iVs
iTanga iMombasa iTransport iCo. iLtd1, iThe iplaintiffs iwere ithe ipersonal
irepresentatives iof ia ideceased iwho imet ihis ideath iwhile itravelling ias ia ipassenger iin
ithe idefendant's ibus. iThe ibus ireached ia iplace iwhere iroad iwas iflooded iand iit iwas
irisky ito icross. iThe idriver iwas ireluctant ito icontinue ithe ijourney ibut isome iof ithe
ipassengers, iincluding ithe ideceased, iinsisted ithat ithe ijourney ishould ibe icontinued.
iThe idriver ieventually iyielded iand icontinued iwith isome iof ithe ipassengers, iincluding
ithe ideceased. iThe ibus igot idrowned itogether iwith iall ithe ipassengers iaboard. iThe
ideceased's idead ibody iwas ifound ithe ifollowing iday. iIt iwas iheld ithat ithe iplaintiff's
iaction iagainst ithe idefendants icould inot ibe imaintained ibecause ithe ideceased iknew
ithe irisk iinvolved iand iassumed iit ivoluntarily iand iso ithe idefence iof ivolenti inon ifit
iinjuria irightly iapplied. iIn iBlake iv iGalloway2 ia inumber iof ipeople iwere iinvolved iin
ihorseplay iinvolving ithrowing ipieces iof ibark iat ione ianother iand ia iparticipant iwas
istruck iin ithe ieye. iThe iCourt iof iAppeal iheld ithat ithere iis ia ibreach iof iduty iof icare
ionly iwhen ithe idefendant iconducts iamount ito irecklessness ior ia ivery ihigh idegree iof
icarelessness. iThe idefendant ihad iconsented ito ithe irisk iof iinjury ioccurring iwithin ithe
iconventions iand iunderstanding iof ithe igame.

1
http://www.journal.lex-warrier.in/tag/khimji-v-tanga-mombasa-transport-co-ltd/
2
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff71d60d03e7f57ea7b2e
 5

ESSENTIALS iOF iVOLENTI iNON iFIT iINJURIA

1)The iRisk imust ibe iknown ito ithe iPlaintiff: iWhen ithe iplaintiff ihas ithe iknowledge
ithat ithe iact iis igoing ito icause iharm ior iloss iand iin ispite iof ithat he iaccepts ito ido iit,
iagreeing ito isuffer ithe iinjury, ithen ithe idefendant iwill inot ibe iliable ifor isuch ian iact.
iHowever, ihaving iknowledge iof isuch ia irisk iis inot ienough ifor ithe iapplication iof ithis
idefence, ithe iprinciple iof iScienti inon ifit iinjuria iis irecognised, iwhich imeans ithat
imere iknowledge ionly iconstitutes ia ipartial idefence iand idoes inot iamount ito
iconsenting ito ithe irisk.

In ithe icase iof iDan iv. iHamilton,3 ithe iplaintiff ichose ito itravel iin idefendant's icar,
ieven ithough ihe iknew ithat ithe idefendant iwas idrunk. iThe icar icrashed, icausing
iinjuries ito ihim. iHere iin ithis icase, ithe iplaintiff iknew ithat ihis ifriend iwas idrunk iand
istill igot iin ia icar iwith ithis iknowledge iand ithus, ithe icourt iheld ithat ithe idefendant
icould inot ibe iheld iliable, iand igetting iin ithe icar iwith ihim iwas iconsent ienough ifor
ithe imaxim ito ibe iapplied.

However, iin iSmith iv. iBaker,4 ithe iplaintiff iwas ia iworkman iwho iwas iemployed iby
ithe idefendants ito idrill iholes iin irocks, inext ito ia icrane. iThe icrane iswung istones iover
ithe iplaintiff's ihead ioccasionally iand ithe iplaintiff iwas iwell iaware iof ithis iactivity.
iWhile iworking, ia istone ifell ifrom ithe icrane iand iinjured ithe iplaintiff iwho
iconsequently isued ithe iemployers ifor inegligence. iThe iHouse iof iLords iheld ithat isince
ithere iwas imere iknowledge iof irisk iwithout ithe iassumption iof iit, ithe idefence iwas inot
iapplicable, iand ithe idefendants iwere iconsequently iheld iliable.

2)The iPlaintiff iknowing ithe irisk, ivoluntarily iagreed ito iincur iit: iFor ithe idefence
ito ibe iinapplicable iit imust ibe ishown ithat ithe iplaintiff ihas ireadily iagreed ito isuffer
ithe isaid irisk.

3
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/dann-v-hamilton.php
4
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/smith-v-baker.php
 6

In iNettleship ivs. iWeston,5 ithe iplaintiff iwas isupervising ithe idefendant iin ilearning ito
idrive. iThe icar icrashed iand ithe iplaintiff iwas iinjured. iThus ihere, ihe icould inot irely
ion ithe idefence iof ivolenti inon-fit iinjuria. iLord iDenning iin ihis ijudgement iheld ithat
ihere ithe i“Knowledge iof ithe irisk iof iinjury iwill inot ibe ienough. iNor iis ia iwillingness
ito itake ithe irisk iof iinjury. iNothing iwill isuffice ishort iof ian iagreement ito iwaive iany
iclaim ifor inegligence.”

In ithe icase iof iImperial iChemical iIndustries iv. iShatwell,6 ithe iemployees iignored
ithe inecessary imeasures ifor isafety iand iundertook ithe irisk iof ithe iwork idespite isuch
imeasures ibeing iprovided ifor iby ithe iemployer. iHere ithe icourt iobserved ithat ithe
iemployees iwere inegligent iin itheir itask iand iconsented ito ithe iwork iwithout iany
icompulsion ifrom ithe iemployer, ithus icould inot ihold ithe iemployer iliable, ias ihe icould
iexercise idefence iunder ivolenti inon-fit iinjuria.

3)Consent imust ibe ifreely igiven: iSimilar ito icontractual iagreements, iconsent igiven
iunder ithis ishould ialso ibe ifree, ii.e. igiven iwithout iany isort iof iexternal ior iinternal
icompulsion. iIf ithe iacquired iconsent iis iunder iany ikind iof icoercion, iundue iinfluence,
ifraud, imisrepresentation, ithe idefendant icannot iclaim ithe idefence iof ivolenti inonfit
iinjuria. iFor ithe iavailability iof ithe idefence ifor ithe idefendant, iit imust ibe ishown ithat
ithe iconsent iwas igiven ifreely.

In ithe icase iof iLakshmi iRanjan iv. iMalar iHospital iLtd,7 ia i40-year-old iwoman,
inoticed ithe idevelopment iof ia ipainful ilump iin iher ibreast; ihowever, iit ihad ino ieffect
ion iher iuterus ibut iduring ithe isurgery, iher iuterus iwas iremoved iwithout iproviding idue
ijustification. iThe icourt iheld ithat ithe ihospital iwas iliable ifor ideficiency iin iservice iand
ithat ithe ipatient's iconsent ifor ithe ioperation idid inot iextend ias iher iconsent ifor ithe
iremoval iof iher iuterus.

In ithe icase iwhere ia iperson iis iincapable iof igiving ihis iconsent iby ireason iof
icomatose, iinsanity ior iminority, ithen ithe iconsent ican ibe itaken iby ithe iparents ior
iguardians iand iare isufficient ito ibe iconcluded ias ivalid.

5
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/nettleship-v-weston.php
6
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8c960d03e7f57ecd69e
7
https://www.coursehero.com/file/p7htk7u
 7

➢ An iessential ifor ithe iconsent iis ithat ithe iconsent ito isuffer isuch iharm imay ibe
iexpressed ior iimplied. iAn iexample iof iexpressed iconsent imay ibe iconsent igiven
ito idoctors. iusually, iprior ito iperforming ioperations, idoctors itake ipermission
ifrom itheir ifamily imembers, ithis iis idone iso ithat iif iduring ithe icourse iof ithe
ioperation, ishould ianything ihappen ito ithe ipatient, ithe idoctor iwon't ibe iheld
iliable ias ithe ifamily imembers ihave iconsented ito ithe ioperation. iThe isecond
itype iof iconsent iwould ibe iimplied iconsent. iunder iimplied iconsent, ithe iconsent
igiven iis inot iexpressly igiven ibut iderived ifrom ione's iactions iin ithe
icircumstances isurrounding ithe icase. iAn iexample ihere iwould ibe iwhen ione
ipurchases ia iticket ito ia icricket imatch, iand iif ia iplayer ihits ithe iball iand ithe
iball ihits ithem, ithe iperson iwon't ireceive iany idamages ias iin iagreeing ito iattend
ithe imatch, ithe iperson iput ihimself iin ia iposition iwhere ihe iknows ithe
iconsequences, ithe idefendant ican itake ithe idefence iof ivolenti inon-fit iinjuria.
➢ In iorder ifor ithe idefence iof ithe imaxim ito ibe iapplicable, ithe iconsent imust ibe
ifree iand iit ishould inot ibe iacquired iby iany ifraudulent imeans. iIn ithe icase iof
iR. iv. iWilliams8 ithe idefendant iwas ia isinging icoach ihad iconvinced ihis istudent
ito ihave isexual iintercourse iwith ihim, istating ithat iit iwould iimprove iher ivoice
iand isinging icapabilities. iHere, ithe idefendant ihad iwas iheld iliable iby ithe icourt
ias ithe istudent's iconsent iwas iobtained iby ifraudulent imethods.
➢ Also, ino iconsent ican ilegalize ian iact iwhich iis iprohibited iby ithe ilaw, iand ithe
idefence iof ivolenti inon ifit iinjuria iwill inot ibe iapplicable. iIt ihas ibeen iobserved
ithat ino iperson ican igive ianother iperson iconsent ifor icommitting ia icrime

LIMITATIONS iON iTHE iSCOPE iOF iTHE iDOCTRINE

There iare icertain ilimitations iunder iwhich ithe idefence iof ivolenti inon ifit iinjuria
icannot ibe itaken iby ia idefendant ieven iif ithe iessentials iof ithis idefence iare ipresent iin
ithe icase. iThese iare:

8
https://casebrief.fandom.com/wiki/R_v_Williams
 8

1)Rescue iCases: iRescue icases iform ian iexception ito ithe iapplication iof ithe idoctrine
iof ivolenti inon ifit iinjuria. iWhen ithe iplaintiff ivoluntarily iencounters ia irisk ito irescue
isomebody ifrom ian iimminent idanger icreated iby ithe iwrongful iact iof ithe idefendant,
ihe icannot ibe imet iwith ithe idefence iof ivolenti inon ifit iinjuria.

In iHaynes iv. iHarwood,9 ithe iservant iof ithe idefendant ibrought itwo ihorses iin ithe
itown inear ia ipolice istation iand ileft ithem ito ido isome iother iwork. iThe ihorses iwere
iupset iby ithe ichildren ias ithey iwere ithrowing istones iat ithe ihorses ias ia iresult ithey
ibroke ifree, iseeing ithem iin irage ia ipolice iofficer iwent ito istop ithe ihorses iand iin
idoing iso ihe igot iinjured iand ibrought ia icase iagainst ithe iowner ifor idamages. iThe
icourt iheld ithe idefendant iliable ibecause ithe idefence iof ivolenti inon-fit iinjuria icannot
ibe iapplied ihere ias iit iis ia irescue icase.

In ianother icase, iWagner iv. iInternational iRailway10, ia irailway ipassenger, iwas

ithrown iout iof ia irunning irailway icar idue ito ithe inegligence iof ithe irailway icompany.
iWhen ithe icar istopped, ihis icompanion igot idown iand iwent iback ito isearch ifor ihis
ifriend. iThere iwas idarkness, ithe irescuer imissed ihis ifooting iand ifell idown ifrom ithe
ibridge iresulting iin iinjuries ito ihim. iHe ibrought ian iaction iagainst ithe irailway
icompany. iIt iwas iheld ithat iit ibeing ia icase iof irescue, ithe irailway icompany iwas
iliable.

2)Unfair iContract iTerms iAct, i1977 i(England): iIt ilimits ithe iright iof ia iperson ito
irestrict ior iexclude ihis iliability iresulting ifrom ihis inegligence iby ia icontract iterm ior
iby inotice. iThe isections iof ithe iact iare iexplained ias ifollows:

I. Sub-sec. i1) iputs ian iabsolute iban ion ia iperson’s iright ito iexclude ihis iliability
ifor ideath ior iany ipersonal iinjury iresulting ifrom inegligence, iby imaking ia
icontract ior igiving ia inotice ito ithat ieffect. iIt imeans ithat ieven iif ithe idefendant
ihas iprocured iplaintiff’s iconsent i(by ian iagreement ior ia inotice) ito isuffer ideath
ior ipersonal iinjury iresulting ifrom ithe iplaintiff’s inegligence, iplaintiff’s iliability
iis inot iexcluded ithereby.
9
Dr. R.K. Bangia Law of Torts
10
Dr. R.K. Bangia Law of Torts
 9

II. Sub-sec. i2) ideals iwith ithe icases iwhere ithe idamage icaused ito ithe iplaintiff iis
iother ithan ideath iand ipersonal iinjury. iIn isuch ia icase, iexclusion iof iliability iby
ia icontract iterm ior inotice iis ipossible ionly iif ithe iterm iof inotice isatisfies ithe
irequirement iof ireasonableness.
III. Sub-sec. i3) ifurther iprovides ithat ieven iin ithose icases iwhere ithe idefendant
icould iexclude ior irestrict ihis iliability iby ia icontract iterm ior inotice, iis inot iof
iitself ito ibe itaken ias iindicating ihis ivoluntary iacceptance iof iany irisk. iIt imeans
ithat ino imerely ian iagreement ior inotice imay ibe ienough ito irestrict ithe
idefendant’s iliability, isomething imore, ifor iinstance, ifurther ievidence iabout ithe
igenuineness iof ithe iplaintiff’s iconsent, iand ivoluntary iassumption iof ithe irisks
imust ialso ibe iproved.

CONCLUSION

Keeping iin imind ithat itort ilaw iis inot ias iprevalent iin iIndia iand iuncodified, ithe
idefence icomes iin iuse iof ithe ilaw ibearers ia ilot. iThe iapplicability iof ithe idoctrine iof
iVolenti inon-fit iinjuria idepends ion iconsent iand ithe iconsent imust ibe ifree. iAnd imere
iknowledge iof irisk idoes inot iserve ias ia igood idefence ibecause iit imust ibe iagreed iby
ithe iplaintiff ithat ihe iis iready ito isuffer ithe iharm ior iloss. iThe imost iimportant ipart iof
ithis idoctrine iis ithat ithe iplaintiff imust ivoluntarily iagree ito isuffer ithe iharm iand ithe
idefendant iwon’t ibe iliable ifor iit. iThe idefendant ican iuse ithis idoctrine ifor ihis idefence
ibut iit imust ifulfill ithe iapplicability iof ithe idoctrine iof ivolenti inon-fit iinjuria. iThus,
iwhile iallowing ithis idefence, icourts ihave ito iensure ithat ithe iconditions iof ithis
idefence iare ifulfilled iand ithe iact iis inot ione iwhich ifalls iwithin ithe ilimitation
iimposed ion ithis idefence.
 10

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1) Ratanlal and Dhirajlal. The Law of Torts

2) Dr. R.K. Bangia. Law of Torts

3) https://blog.ipleaders.in

4) https://www.jstor.org

5) https://allindialegalforum.in