This article titled ‘Volenti Non Fit Injuria: Origin, Meaning and Explanation’ is written by Sahajpreet Bhusari and maxim of Volenti Non Fit Injuria. I. Origin and Meaning Volenti non fit injuria is a legal term of Latin origin. It literally means, ‘to a willing person, no injury is done’[1]. II. Explanation and Application It is one of the most important defences in tort law. According to this proverb, a person who freely renounced or relinquished his right has no claim...
This article titled ‘Volenti Non Fit Injuria: Origin, Meaning and Explanation’ is written by Sahajpreet Bhusari and maxim of Volenti Non Fit Injuria.
I. Origin and Meaning
Volenti non fit injuria is a legal term of Latin origin. It literally means, ‘to a willing person, no injury is done’[1].
II. Explanation and Application
It is one of the most important defences in tort law. According to this proverb, a person who freely renounced or relinquished his right has no claim to it.
It is a common-law idea that means that any person who freely consents to any injury will not be responsible for the damages and that this consent will serve as a strong defence against the plaintiff. The defence of volenti non fit injuria requires the Claimant to enter into a freely agreed and voluntary agreement while fully aware of the facts.
III. Illustration
A, B, and C decide to take C’s automobile to Goa. C’s automobile, on the other hand, has a problem with its brakes. In the event of an accident, all three suffered serious injuries. In this situation, if A and B continue to sit in the automobile despite the fact that the brakes are broken, they will not be able to seek relief from C.
This is because they deliberately agreed to the journey despite the fact that the car’s braking system was malfunctioning. However, in the example above, if A and B were unaware of the state of the brakes and were harmed while sitting in it, they can sue C for damages since A and B did not agree to the risk of being injured due to brake failure.
IV. Case Laws
The petitioner in Ravindra Padmanabhan (Dr.) v. Lakshmi Rajan And Anr.[2] had a tumour on her breasts and went to a hospital to get it removed. Even though it had nothing to do with the tumour, the doctor removed her uterus while performing the operation on her.
The defendants were found accountable by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal, and the defence of volenti non fit injuria was dismissed.
References
[1] Volenti Non Fit Injuria, Available Here.
[2] 2 (2007) CPJ 17 NC.
- Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary and Entrance Exams
- Legal Bites Academy – Ultimate Test Prep Destination
