The ways are General Defences available in torts.
There are eight general defences available in law of torts, by which the defendant may, however, avoid his/her liability by taking the plea of some defences.
The general defences are:
1. Volenti non fit injuria, or rather in simple terms defence of Consent
2. Plaintiff, the wrongdoer.
3. Inevitable accident.
4. Act of God.
5. Private Defence.
6. Mistake.
7. Necessity.
8. Statutory Authority.
Let us discuss all the defences individually.
Volenti non fit injuria
When a person consents(agrees/give permission) of some harm upon himself, then he has no remedy for that in tort.
The strange part is why should any person gives his consent to let him harm?
why anyone will allow any other person to harm him?
I will personally not allow any third person to harm me....
Now let us talk about consent and the logic behind the defence..................
Assume you have a well in your house, suddenly a random day you jumped into the well, the result was you survived and anyhow you came out of the well.
So, now can you sue your father for making the well in house. The answer will be no, but you got harmed because of a third person idea. you did it on your own wish so you can't sue.
In same way, when you know the consequence of an event and you have an idea that you might get hurt then you cannot sue.
Let me take an example to explain you:
There is a road in which vehicle runs at a speed of 80-100km/hr, you started walking in the middle of the road towards the vehicle, the ultimate result was you got hit by a car.
who will be guilty you or the driver?
On no doubt, you will be guilty, because knowing the fact the you will get hurt you did, so driver simply can use the defence of volenti non fit injuria and get rid out off the case.
Same logic applies in cricket stadium(got hit by ball),football stadium(got hit by ball), car racing(collision between two cars and you got hurt), and other places where you know you will get hurt but you accept the consequences. In all these cases defendant simply can use the defence of volenti non fit injuria and avoid his liability.
Some established cases for clear explanation:
1. Hall vs Brooklands Auto Racing Club (1932) All E.R Rep. 208
The plaintiff was a spectator and was enjoying the car race and suddenly there was a collision between two cars, and one of the car was thrown among the spectators injuring the plaintiff.
The plaintiff sued and asked for the compensation, defendant used the defence of volenti non fit injuria.
The court held that. the plaintiff implied took the risk of such injury, the danger being inherent in the sport which any spectator could foresee, the defendant was not liable.
2. Illot vs Wilkes (1820) 3 B&Ald, 304
There was spring guns in the land of defendant and it was clearly mentioned in the front gate of the house.
A trespasser tried to enter into the house, he knew about the presence of spring guns on the land. As the person entered, he got shot by the spring guns.
The trespasser sued the defendant(i.e.: Land owner) and asked for compensation.
The court held that, is was clear on the front gate about the consequence and by the warning in the front gate anyone can foresee the damage he can suffer. So, the plaintiff implied took the risk of injury.
The defendant will not be held liable.
The same case reference goes where you have dogs in your house.
Reference cases are:
Padmavati vs Dugganaika (1975) 1 Kam. L.J. 93.
Wooldrige vs Sumner (1963) 2 Q.B. 43
Thomas vs Quartermaine (1887) Q.B.D. 685
The above all explanation was all about Consent,
What if:
The consent was not free, or
Consent obtained by fraud, or let say,
Consent obtained under complusion
Next blog we will discuss:
The last suspense questions,
Limitation of volenti non fit injuria, and
Other defences
No comments:
Post a Comment