volenti non fit injuria
A person who freely and with full knowledge agrees to suffer harm, or to run the risk of it, cannot sue for that harm. Spectators at a cricket match accept the risk of being hit by a ball; a patient who consents to an operation cannot sue for battery. The consent must be free, and must relate to the very risk that caused the harm.
The defence has limits. Knowledge of a risk is not consent to it (Smith v. Baker, House of Lords, 1891). It does not apply to rescuers who act to save others from danger created by the defendant's negligence (Haynes v. Harwood, Court of Appeal, 1935), nor to harm caused by the defendant's negligence beyond the risk accepted.
Example
The spectator struck by a ball hit out of the ground could not sue, as the risk was inherent in the game: volenti non fit injuria.
In Indian law
- Smith v. Baker & Sons (House of Lords, 1891): knowledge of a risk is not consent
- Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club (Court of Appeal, 1933): spectators accept inherent risks
See also
scienti non fit injuria · contributory negligence · negligence
Read more in the study notes
- Employees' compensation: history, definitions and the employer's liability (Labour and Industrial Law II)
- General defences in tort (Law of Torts)
- Negligence (Law of Torts)
- Methods of study: lectures, textbooks, the case method and technical terms (Legal Methods)