This document discusses the legal maxim of "volenti non fit injuria", which means that a plaintiff cannot recover for harm they consented to. It provides the Latin translation and explains that the plaintiff must voluntarily agree to suffer harm for this defense to apply. An example is given of fighters in a fighting club who consent to the risk of injury. The essential elements of the defense are listed as: 1) consent must be free, 2) consent cannot be obtained by fraud, 3) mere knowledge does not imply consent, and 4) the defendant must be negligent. A brief history of the maxim and jurist opinions on it are then presented, followed by examples of case law that helped develop and establish limitations on the maxim over time

1. Case Law: Woodley V Metropolitan
District Railway Co (1877) 2 Ex D 384
1
01-177191-027

2. VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA
• The maxim ‘Volenti non fit injuria’ is a defence that can be
used by the defendant when the plaintiff voluntarily agrees to
suffer loss or harm
• Latin for "to a willing person, no injury is done
• Volenti is sometimes described as the plaintiff "consenting to
run a risk“
• The most important part of this doctrine is that the plaintiff
must voluntarily agree to suffer the harm and the defendant
won’t be liable for it
• Volenti is also known as a "voluntary assumption of risk" (In
US law).
2
01-177191-029

3. EXAMPLE
• In the fighting club, the
fighters have to give their
consent to the authority if
any injury or harm occurs
then they do not have the
right to file a suit to the
authority.
3

4. ESSENTIALS OF THE DOCTRINE
1. Consent must be free.
2. Consent should not be obtained by fraud.
3. Mere knowledge does not imply assent.
4. Negligence of the defendant.
4
01-177191-026

5. Basic History and Development of the
Legal Maxim
• Nulla iniuria est, quæ in volentem fiat
Volenti non fit injuria is an often-quoted form of the legal maxim
formulated by the Roman jurist Ulpian which means:
‘No injury is committed against one who consents or when a person
consents to the infliction of some harm upon himself , he has no
remedy for that in torts.’
(Corpus Iuris Civilis Digests bk, 47, ch 10, sec. 1, subsec, 5)
5
01-177191-028

6. Jurist Opinion on Maxim
According to Lord Herschel
(Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain in 1886)
"The maxim is founded on good sense and justice. One who has
invited or assented to an act being done towards him, cannot,
when he suffers from it, complain of it as a wrong.”
• The defence, although well recognized in general terms
through- out actions for negligence, has been expressly applied
by name in very few cases until in recent years.
6

7. Case laws Showing Evolution of Maxim
lott v. Wilkes (1820)
The famous spring-gun case (Negligence)
Skipp v. Eastern Counties Ry. Co.4 (I853)
Plaintiff's duty to attach the carriages
Senior v. Ward (I859)
The negligence of the plaintiff deprived him of any remedy.
Woodley v. Met. Dist. Ry. Co.3 (I877)
The defendant was not at fault and owed no duty to the plaintiff.
Thomas v. Quartermain (I887)
Employers' Liability Act in England 1880
Smith v. Baker (1891)
Risk was one of fact and not one of law
7

8. LIMITATION OF THE MAXIM
1. Consent must be voluntary and free
2. Consent must not generally be to illegal acts [case
law: Lane v Holloway]
3. Application of the maxim in cases of negligence [case
law: Dann v. Hamilton]
4. The maxim does not apply to rescue cases [case law:
Haynes v. Harwood]
5. Knowledge does not necessarily imply assent or
consent [case law:
Indian Industrials v. Alamelu Amma]
8
01-177191-030

9. THANK YOU
9