| GyanCentral - The hub for engineering and law students - IIT-JEE, AIEEE, BITSAT, CLAT, AILET - 2012: Volenti Non Fit Injuria legal reasoning Dec 4th 2012, 18:52 | GyanCentral - The hub for engineering and law students - IIT-JEE, AIEEE, BITSAT, CLAT, AILET - 2012 | | The source for all engineering and legal education news in India | | | Volenti Non Fit Injuria legal reasoning Dec 4th 2012, 18:39 General defences to Tort: Today WE shall take up Volenti non fit injuria principle, which is a defence in the law of Torts.Try attempting the Questions: Volenti Non fit Injuria :When a person consents to the infliction of some harm upon himself, he has no remedy for that in tort. In case the Plaintiff voluntarily suffers from some harm, he is not allowed to complain for that and his consent serves as a good defence against him. Consent to suffer harm may be express or implied. John was a spectator at Budh International Circuit Grand Prix owned by the defendant company. During a race there Car Y collided into Car X. Car X hit him, thereby injuring him. a)The race car driver of car Yis liable for driving recklessly. b)The Defendant company is liable for the Act. c)The plaintiff himself took the risk which was foreseeable, Hence no liability d) Car driver X is liable. The Driver was taking the jeep for filling petrol in the tank, two Strangers took lift in the jeep. Suddenly one of the bolts fixing the front wheel gave way toppling the jeep. The two Strangers sustained injuries. a) The Master is vicariously liable for this Act b)this is a case of Sheer Accident c)The strangers Voluntarily took the risk. No liability d)Both( b) and (c) X, a trespasser knew that Y had a fierce German Shepherd in his home. He uses Y’s Home for a quick Shortcut. Z, Y’s servant was taking care of the dog in his master’s absence. The dog bit X. a)No liability, he took the risk voluntarily . b)Y shouldn’t keep a ferocious dog in his home, He is liable c)Z his liable because he didn’t tie the dog. d)Both are liable(Master and Servant) The Consent must be free. If obtained by fraud or under Compulsion or under some mistaken impression such consent does not serve as a good defence. A married woman noticed development of a painful lump in her breast. The lump had no relation with the uterus and no effect. However it was removed without any justification. a)No free consent obtained from the woman. Liability arises. b)She should’ve known about the risk involved. Volenti Non fit injuria c) No liability because the hospital authorities acted in good faith d) both (b) and (c) Limitations to this doctrine: This doctrine has been curtailed in: Rescue Cases Where the plaintiff voluntarily encounters a risk to rescue somebody from an imminent danger created by the wrongful act of the defendant, he cannot rely on the defence of volenti non fit injuria. X, a policeman saw a horse van belonged to the defendant, loose. The horse ran and was about to kick a child who was teasing the Horse from a long time. His parents were standing some meters away. a)the parents are liable for damages. They should’ve taken proper care of the child. b) Volunti non fit injuria. No remedy c)the Defendant is liable. He was a police officer and its a case of rescue d)The child is liable because he was teasing the Horse. A railway passenger was thrown out of a railway car. After 2 kilometers when the car stopped, his friend got down in the darkness and while he was running back to look out for his friend he tripped and sustained injuries. a)the driver should have stopped the train quickly. Hence he is liable. b)case of rescue. Remedy available against the railway company c) the railway authority is not liable. He got down from the train in search for his friend d)He took the risk voluntarily. No remedy is available. |  | | |  |  |
No comments:
Post a Comment