General Defenses : Volenti non fit injuria



When a person consents to the infliction of any harm or injury upon himself, he will not get any remedy under the law of torts. This means that if the plaintiff voluntarily agrees to suffer some harm, he is not allowed to complain from that harm and how consent serves as a good defense against him. No person can enforce a right which he has voluntarily waived or abandoned. The consent can either be express or implied consent.

The following are the conditions for this maxim:
1) consent must be free
2) Act must be lawful and
3) Scienti non fit injuria is not a consent. Having knowledge does not imply consent.

Case Law: Hall Vs Brooklands Auto racing club
The Plaintiff was a spectator at a motor car rase at Brooklands and the racing track was owned by the defendant. During the race there was a collision between two cars one being thrown to the spectators causing injury to the plaintiff. The court held that the plaintiff consented to the harm or injury and danger being present in any sport which can be foreseen, thus the defendant held not liable.

Case Law: Padmavathi Vs. Dugganaika
In this case, the driver was driving a jeep and he was going to filling station to fill petrol. Two strangers asked for a lift in his jeep and suddenly tires of the jeep gave away toppling the jeep. The two strangers sustained injuries and one of them died as the consequence of the same. The court held that the neither driver nor the master could be made liable as it was an unfortunate accident and the strangers had voluntarily entered the jeep.

There are few exceptions to this maxim :
1) Rescue cases:
Rescue cases are exceptions to the maxim volenti non fit injuria. If any person voluntarily takes a risk to rescue from the danger created by any person’s wrongful act, this maxim will not be applicable and the plaintiff will have every right to bring the action on the person for his wrongful act. The rule applies in case of rescue of the property as well.

Case Law: Haynes Vs Harwood
In this case, the Plaintiff’s servant left the horse van unattended in the crowded street. One of the boy mischievously threw a stone on the horses which aggrieved the horses and they started running which cause injuries to the women and children on the road. The Plaintiff, who is a police constable noticed that and ran and stopped the running horses. During this process he was injured and later filed an action against the defendant. The defendants used this maxim Volenti non fit injuria and contented that the Plaintiff voluntarily took risk to stop the horses and he will not eligible for getting damages.
The court held that in rescue cases the maxim is not applicable and the defendants were liable.

2) Under the unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
The rule of Volenti non fit injuria has now been abolished in case of personal injury from negligence. It means that the defendant cannot take the plea that the plaintiff had consented to suffer the risk to his person by contract.


Even though plaintiff had consented to suffer an injury, he may still be eligible to file an action against the defendant in these above situations.