Defence of Volenti Non-Fit Injuria in Torts

Volenti Non-Fit Injuria, a Latin phrase meaning “to one who volunteers, no harm is done,” essentially states that if a person voluntarily agrees to endure a specific harm, they have no legal remedy in tort. 

Elements of Volenti Non-Fit Injuria

To establish the defence of Volenti Non-Fit Injuria, the following elements must be present:

Consent (Volenti): The injured party must willingly and knowingly consent to inflict harm upon themselves. This implies they know the risks involved and agree to bear the consequences.

Same Harm (Injuria): The harm suffered must be the same as the one to which the person consented. If the harm differs from what was agreed upon, the defence of Volenti Non-Fit Injuria may not apply.

No Remedy (Non-Fit): The person who caused the harm cannot be held legally responsible or liable for the injuries suffered by the consenting party.

Tricky Areas and Exceptions

While the doctrine of volenti Non-Fit Injuria appears straightforward, there are certain tricky areas and exceptions to consider:

Freely Given Consent: The consent must be freely given without force or fraud. If the consent was obtained through coercion or deception, the defence of Volenti Non-Fit Injuria might not apply.

Negligence: Volenti Non-Fit Injuria does not apply in cases of negligence by the defendant. Even if the injured party consented to participate in a potentially risky activity, if the defendant’s negligence caused the harm, they may still be held liable.

Rescue Cases: Volenti Non Fit Injuria is generally not applicable in cases where a person voluntarily puts themselves at risk to rescue or assist others. The doctrine does not absolve the negligent party from liability in such situations.

Example and Illustration

Sports Injuries: In a game of cricket, a batsman voluntarily chooses to participate, fully aware of the risks involved, including the possibility of being hit by the ball. If the batsman is struck and injured by a bowler’s delivery, they cannot hold the bowler liable for their injuries based on Volenti Non Fit Injuria. The batsman consented to the inherent risks of the sport by choosing to play.

Dangerous Activities: A person decides to go skydiving and signs a waiver acknowledging the risks involved. During the jump, they suffer an injury due to a parachute malfunction. In this case, the injured person may not be able to hold the skydiving company responsible based on Volenti Non Fit Injuria. By voluntarily participating in the activity and acknowledging the associated risks, they assumed the responsibility for any harm that might occur.

Employment Hazards: An employee working in a factory handling hazardous chemicals is fully aware of the potential dangers and has received appropriate safety training. Despite following safety protocols, an accident occurs, resulting in injury. In this scenario, the employee’s knowledge of the risks and their continued employment in the hazardous environment may invoke Volenti Non Fit Injuria. The defence may apply, barring them from seeking compensation from their employer for the harm suffered.

Rescue Case: A person witnesses a car accident and sees a trapped individual inside a vehicle engulfed in flames. Despite the obvious risks involved, the bystander courageously decides to intervene and attempts to rescue the trapped person. In the process, the rescuer sustains severe burns and other injuries.

In this scenario, the person who caused the car accident cannot rely on the defence of Volenti Non Fit Injuria against the rescuer. Although the rescuer knowingly and willingly exposed themselves to the risks associated with the rescue attempt, the doctrine does not apply. This is because the courts recognise the noble intention of rescuing and providing assistance in emergencies, where individuals may act selflessly and without concern for their safety.

Summary

Volenti Non Fit Injuria serves as an important doctrine in tort law, recognising that individuals who voluntarily consent to a particular harm should not be able to seek legal remedies for the consequences they willingly assumed. However, this defence is subject to limitations, such as freely given consent, exceptions in cases of negligence, and the exclusion of rescue situations.