NARSEE MONJEE INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES,

SCHOOL OF LAW, BENGALURU

VOLENTI NON-FIT INJURIA IN LAW OF TORTS

- A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

BATCH OF 2022-2027

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Prof. Alisha Thomas Bhargavi Shroff
Assistant Professor of Law 81022200467
NMIMS SOL, Bengaluru BBA LLB Semester 1

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S NO. TOPIC PAGE

NUMBER
1 ABSTRACT 3

2 INTRODUCTION 4-5

3 LITERATURE REVIEW 6-7

4 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM 7

5 RATIONALE OF STUDY 7

6 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 8

7 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 8

8 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 8

9 CHAPTER 1 9-10
MEANING, NATURE AND SCOPE OF VOLENTI NON-FIT INJURIA
10 CHAPTER 2 11-15
ESSENTIALS AND LIMITATIONS OF VOLENTI NON-FIT INJURIA
11 CHAPTER 3 16-19
JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IN 18TH AND 19TH CENTURY
12 CHAPTER 4 20-22
JUDICIAL VIEW IN 21ST CENTURY
13 CHAPTER 5 23-26
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
• COMPARISON OF 19TH CENTURY AND 21ST CENTURY CASE LAWS
• CRITICAL ANALYSIS
• POSITION IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
• POSITION IN THE UK
14 CHAPTER 6 27
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
15 BIBLIOGRAPHY 28-30

2
 ABSTRACT

The Latin word "tortum," which literally means "to twist," is where the word "tort" originates. It includes
deformed, twisted or illegal behaviour. The tort law currently used in India was derived from English law and
modified by Indian legislative acts to fit Indian circumstances. The harm that is caused willingly does not
establish a legal injury and therefore is not actionable. The Latin phrase ‘volenti non-fit injuria’, which means
"anything which a man consents to cannot be reported of as an injury", perfectly expresses this idea. Only
risks that a reasonable person would have acknowledged as a result of their actions are included by the
principle. Voluntary harm does not result in a legal injury and thus cannot be pursued in court. A right that
has been voluntarily renounced is unenforceable. This research paper provides the basic understanding of the
maxim including its applications and limitations. Additionally, it emphasises the essential elements of this
maxim and its impact with different interpretations through each case law. The defence of volenti non-fit
injuria has limited application in tort law which is discussed in this research paper. Lastly, this research paper
suggests a more comprehensive explanation of the maxim- Volenti non-fit injuria.

Keywords: Volenti non-fit injuria, consent, risk, knowledge, defence, damages.

3
 INTRODUCTION

The word ‘Tort’ is derived from Latin term ‘Tortum’ which means ‘wrong, injustice’. Tort law is enforceable
when a wrong done is not criminal, but can lead to action in a civil court.1 According to Salmond, "Tort is a
civil wrong for which the remedy is common law action for unliquidated damages and which is not exclusively
the breach of contract or the breach of a trust or other merely equitable obligation." The essential elements
constituting a tort are:

1. A wrongful act or omission,

2. The act must give rise to legal or actual damage, and

3. The act should be of such a nature that it gives rise to a legal remedy in the form of an action for
damages.2

The defendant would be liable when the plaintiff brings an action against him for a particular tort, proving the
existence of all the essentials of that tort. However, there are certain situations where the defendant can avoid
his/her liability by taking certain defences. These defences are categorized under two different heads i.e.
General Defences and Specific Defences. General Defences are those which are available for several wrongs
whereas Specific defences are available for a particular specific tort to which it relates. For example, defence
of consent (Volenti non-fit injuria) may be taken for trespass, defamation and many other wrongs hence it is
General Defence. The lists of General Defence available for the tort committed by the defendant to avoid
his/her liability are as follows:3

1) Volenti non-fit injuria

2) Act of God
3) Inevitable accident
4) Private defence
5) Mistake
6) Statutory authority
7) Plaintiff is the wrongdoer
8) Necessity

1
Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/tort, (last visited Oct 15, 2022)
2
A.K. Jain, The Law of Torts, Page 40,63,66, (APC Books 2016), ISBN: 9788177395754
3
Ibid.
4
The maxim Volenti non fit injuria embodies the principle: harm suffered voluntarily does not constitute a legal
injury and is not actionable. Volenti non fit injuria is Latin for “to a willing person, no injury is done”. Volenti
non fit injuria was originally formulated as “Nulla iniuria est, quæ in volentem fiat” by the Roman jurist
Ulpian.4 The maxim states a principle of estoppel (a legal restriction to alleging or denying a fact because of
one’s own previous actions or words to the contrary5) applicable originally to a Roman citizen who consented
to being sold as a slave. This legal maxim states that a person who voluntarily encounters danger cannot
recover from any resulting injury. It is also referred to as “voluntary assumption of risk”.

When a person agrees to the infliction of harm upon himself, he has no remedy for the same under tort law.
This maxim is founded and put to practice on good sense and justice. The perfectly sound principle underlying
this maxim is illustrated in everyday life. It safeguards the surgeon who amputates a limb or the football
player, boxer, any sportsperson, as long as they play by the rules of the game.6 A right that is willingly
relinquished or abandoned cannot be enforced. Hence, wilful or voluntary harm does not establish a legal
injury and is not actionable.

4
Digest, Book 47, title 10, section 1 & 5.
5
Merriam Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/estoppel, (last visited Oct. 15, 2022)
6
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts, page 94, (Generic 2020), ISBN: 9789386515667
5
 LITERATURE REVIEW
ARTICLES

1. “The Volenti Maxim” 7- by Peter Schaber (October 2019)

• This paper examines the maxim volenti non ft injuria (the volenti maxim). According to the volenti
maxim, a person cannot be harmed by something to which she consents to. However, the author
contends that not all cases of valid consent fall within the scope of the volenti maxim. Even when the
consenter's consent is legitimate, there are times when he is harmed. The author further explains that
only obligations that are sensitive to consent can be released by valid consent; duties that are not
sensitive to consent cannot. If the consentee violates a consent-sensitive obligation, they are wronging
the consenter and breaking the law.
2. “Volenti Non Fit Injuria”8 by The Cambridge Law Journal (March 2006)
• This article addresses the problems with respect to the nature and scope of Volenti non fit injuria. It
considers the principal uncertainty of whether the plaintiff’s mere voluntary exposure to risk caused
by defendant’s negligence can give rise to the defence.
• The author discusses the issue of whether the agreement can be made after the defendant’s negligent
act has occurred and the problems related to the same.
• The author then discusses whether the defence can arise in the absence of any agreement and covers
various aspects of contributory negligence.
• The author discusses when an agreement is said to be implied and establishes the relationship between
volenti and duty of care.
3. “Volenti Non Fit Injuria”9 by The Yale Law Journal (February 1903)
• The author discusses volenti non fit injuria with respect to to master-servant cases and specifically the
case where the master intentionally disregards the statute, does his servant being completely aware of
the violation of law and the resulting dangers, continue in the employment at his own risk or at the
risk of his employer. The author also analyses the case where violation of a specific statutory duty by
an employer causing an injury to employee, is the latter deprived of his remedy for private injury due
to his knowledge and consent of the risk.
• The author further explores foreign corporations in regard to right of action after failure to comply
with state registry law.

7
Schaber, P., "The Volenti Maxim", The Journal of Ethics, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 79-89., (2020), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-019-
09310-5
8
Jaffey A. J. E. ,Volenti Non Fit Injuria, The Cambridge Law Journal, vol. 44(1), pp. 87–110, (1985),
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4506702
9
“Volenti Non Fit Injuria.” The Yale Law Journal, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 238–40, (1903), JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/781943

6
BOOKS
1. “Ratanlal & Dheerajlal, The Law of Torts, (2020)”-
• The authors explain the maxim of Volenti non fit injuria with respect to Leave and Licence. They
give various examples and cases to explain the basic reasoning or purpose of existence of the
maxim.
• The authors discuss about Volenti non fit injuria with regard to negligence including medical
negligence and the question of patient’s consent. They further discuss the application of the maxim
in sporting events.
• The author also covers the principle of scienti non fit injuria and draws a distinction between case
of negligence and case of volenti. And lastly the author discusses the limitations of the maxim.
2. “S.P. Singh, Law of Torts, (2015)”-
• The author introduces the maxim along with the other general defences. He discusses the
application of the maxim volenti non fit injuria giving a number of cases and examples making it
clear as to the cases where the maxim applies and the cases where it doesn’t.
• The author highlights the principles that have been followed in India along with illustrations. Lastly
the author explains in detail the exceptions to the application of the maxim.
3. “B.M. Gandhi, Law of Torts, (2011)”-
• The author introduces the maxim of volenti non fit injuria under the general defence of consent.
He elaborates on proof for the application of the maxim, the application of the maxim and
limitations of the maxim.
• He discusses five of the leading cases on the subject of volenti non fit injuria.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
When a court decides on a problematic case of Volenti, the court may consider how a reasonable person views
the situation, rather than the intent of the parties involved. Volenti is pled as a defence when the defendant is
of the understanding that the plaintiff consented (implicit or explicit consent)to the harm that has been inflicted
unto him. There exists several issues with implicit consent. As what maybe implied to one person may not be
to another. In actual practice the defence is often not very successful due to the differing facts and situations
of the cases. It also often converts into negligence or contributory negligence. Even though consent is of
utmost importance in this defence, the defence of Volenti is limited in its application and is not the same as
the defence of consent.

RATIONALE OF STUDY
This study aims to cover the basic understanding, applications and limitations of the general defence of Volenti
non fit injuria under the law of torts. It proceeds to understand the meaning, nature and scope of the legal
maxim. It focuses on the essential elements to successfully take the defence. It helps to understand the
7
application of the defence through various case laws and examples. the study highlights the limited scope of
the defence as well as the unclear or lack of information in certain aspects of the application of the maxim.
Lastly it is made clear through this paper with, principles, case laws and judgements in which circumstances
the defence may and may not be used by the defendant.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The purposes of this research are:
1. To understand the meaning, nature and scope of Volenti non-fit injuria.
2. To understand the essential elements required to successfully take the defence of Volenti non-fit
injuria.
3. To understand the limitations of the application of the maxim.
4. To understand the judicial precedents in 18th and 19th century and the judicial view in 21st century.
5. To critically analyse the defence of Volenti non-fit injuria.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. What is Volenti non-fit injuria?
2. What are the essential elements of the maxim?
3. What is the purpose of this doctrine?
4. What has to be proven to take Volenti non-fit injuria as a successful defence?
5. In which cases the defence of Volenti non-fit injuria can and cannot be used by the defendant?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The methodology that would be applied for carrying out this research is Doctrinal, Analytical and Comparative
research. In this research the primary sources of data are the Constitution, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian
Evidence Act, IT Act, Indian Penal Code, Specific Relief Act, Limitation Act, Rules, Government Orders,
Judicial Precedents, Report of various Committees. The secondary sources of data comprises of published
books, journals , scholarly articles, news releases, print media, online journals, research reports and others
were used.

8
CHAPTER 1: MEANING, NATURE AND SCOPE OF VOLENTI NON-FIT INJURIA

MEANING
• The doctrine of Volenti non fit injuria means if a person willingly consents to the infliction of harm
upon himself he/she is not entitled to get compensation or remedy under the Law of torts. The phrase
is a Latin term which translates, “to a willing person, injury is not done”. Any harm suffered
voluntarily by anyone does not amount to legal injury and the same is not actionable by the law of
torts.
• For instance: You are watching a cricket match being played in a stadium. You are struck by the cricket
ball after the batsman strikes it. Despite the fact that you were hurt, there will be no consideration for
any type of compensation because your consent was assumed when you purchased the game ticket.

NATURE

• When applied Volenti non fit injuria is an absolute defence from liability. This means that if it can be
shown that the injured party committed the tort intentionally and with knowledge, the tort-feasor is
released from all liability. Thus, the key component of this defence is the consent of the one who is
wronged.

• This defence makes it mandatory for the plaintiff to have agreed out of free consent. It cannot be
carried out by factors such as coercion, undue influence, misrepresentation, etc. The consent given by
plaintiff can be either expressed (stated) or implied.

• This doctrine is only applicable to the extent that a regular, sane individual could anticipate the risks
associated with the act. The claimant should also be informed of the dangers, including their nature,
scope, and extent. The harm done cannot be greater than the harm consented. For instance, in the above
example, if a batsman hits another player with his bat, he cannot use this defence because the victim
did not consent to such harm. Furthermore, harm brought on by negligent actions cannot be seen to
have agreed to.

• The maxim assumes that the defendant committed a tortious act. The consent that matters is the assent
to the lack of appropriate care that could result in injury, not the risk of injury. Furthermore, the
defendant is required to get the plaintiff’s consent prior to the plaintiff's injury or harm for the doctrine
to be applicable.10

10
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts, page 93, (Generic 2020).
9
 • Burden of Proof for the defence of Volenti is on the defendant. It must be proved by the defendant
that:

1. The plaintiff was fully aware of the act and the risks involved.

2. The plaintiff had willingly and freely consented to the dangers associated with the act.
Additionally, in order to successfully take the defence, the defendant must show that the plaintiff
was aware of the degree or scope of the dangers associated with the act.

SCOPE

• There is a difference between knowledge of risk and acceptance of risk. For the defence to be available
it must be proved that the plaintiff was completely aware of the risks involved and its extent. Mere
knowledge of the risk is not enough; the plaintiff needs to give his consent for sustaining the harm that
the risk may cause. This is because you cannot be said to accept everything that you happen to be
aware of.
• The acceptance of the risk may be either implied or expressed. In the game of Football, players
impliedly consent to the normal course of injury but it does not mean that they cannot sue for an injury
that is caused deliberately by other players.
• Consent is also a subjective element. Hence, the outcome will depend on the facts and circumstances
of the case (including the relationship between the parties, the legality of the act itself, etc).
• In order to claim the defence of Volenti Non Fit Injuria, the act of the tortfeasor cannot be an
illegal/unlawful act.

10
CHAPTER 2: ESSENTIALS AND LIMITATIONS OF VOLENTI NON-FIT INJURIA

Meaning and Types of consent

The main requirement for this doctrine to be used as a defence is consent. In fact, the Volenti non fit injuria
doctrine is frequently referred to as the "consent defence." For the simple reason that you have given your
consent, you cannot sue someone for trespassing if you personally welcomed them to your home. You are not
entitled to the enforcement of a right that you voluntarily waived. The consent of a person's parent or legal
guardian is sufficient if they are a minor or are incapable of giving consent due to insanity. Consent can be of
two types:

1. Express consent: Clearly stated consent is known as express consent. The consent may be expressed
verbally or in writing.
2. Implied consent: An ambiguous form of consent that is inferred from a person's actions or behaviour
as well as the facts and circumstances of the scenario. One's participation in an activity, silence or
inactivity in some situations can also be presumed as implied consent.

To take the successful defence of Volenti non-fit injuria, it becomes necessary to prove certain essentials
elements. These are as follows:

1. Consent:
When the elements listed below are met, consent is considered to have been provided for purposes of
tort law.
• Free consent: To have this defence available it is important to prove that the consent of the defendant
was free and was not influenced by anything. If the consent of the plaintiff is obtained by fraud or
under compulsion or misrepresentation, it cannot be used as a valid defence. Additionally, it is also
to be kept in mind that the act performed and the consent given for the act must be the same.
* Lakshmi Rajan v. Malar hospital 11
In this case the complainant had a painful lump in her breast. She agreed to get the lump
removed from her breast surgically. However, her uterus was removed during the surgery
without any prior justification or consent for no obvious cause. The defendant took the
defence of Volenti non fit injuria but was rejected. It was held that the defendants i.e. the
hospital was liable as removing her uterus was not what she had consented to.
• Consent obtained by fraud: Consent obtained by lying and misrepresentation of facts is not a valid
consent.

11
Lakshmi Rajan v. Malar Hospital Ltd. III, (1998) CPJ 586 ( Tamil Nadu S. C. D. R. C)
11
 * R. vs. Williams12
In this case, the accused music teacher was held guilty of rape. He had sexual intercourse with
a girl student of 16 years by making her believe that his act will improve her voice. The victim
misunderstood the nature of the act and gave her consent believing that the act will improve her
vocal cord. The court held the accused guilty of rape and the defence of Volenti non-fit
injuria was not allowed as the consent was taken by fraud.
* While in R. vs. Clarence13, the accused was given the defence as even though he was active
with a sexually transmitted disease and didn’t inform his spouse before having intercourse with
her. Though he had no intention of transferring her the disease, he was well aware of the risks.
The court held that the act of intercourse in a marriage was consented to and thus the defendant
was granted the defence.
• Consent obtained under compulsion: Consent is invalid in situations where the person is not allowed
to choose freely. There may be circumstances where the individual is forced to take certain risks,
given the option, he would not have chosen to perform.
▪ These kinds of circumstances frequently occur in master-servant or employer-employee
relationships. The employee is typically faced with the choice of taking on the risky work or
losing their job. If the employee in this case agrees to perform the risky task, it does not follow
that he also agrees to bear the risk's repercussions.
* In Imperial Chemical Industries v Workmen14
It was held that if an employee adopts a risky method of work ignoring the precautionary
measures provided by the employer, not because of any compulsion of his employer but of his
own will, then the defence of Volenti can be successfully pleaded.
* Bowater v. Rowley Regis Corporation15
The plaintiff, a Cart Driver, was asked by the defendants to drive a horse wherein both were
aware that the horse is likely to bolt. The plaintiff was not willing to drive the horse and protested
the same but later took out the horse in obedience to order. The horse bolted and the plaintiff
was injured. It was held by the court that the doctrine of Volenti non-fit Injuria is not applicable
because even though he knew the risks he didn’t consent to it willingly but more in fear.

2. The plaintiff should have had the full knowledge of the risks involved and mere knowledge does not
imply consent.

• For the correct application of the doctrine two important points need to be proved by the
defendants i.e. plaintiff was aware of the risk present and had consented for the same to suffer

12
R. v. Williams [1998], 1 S.C.R. 1128
13
R v. Clarence [1991], 4 All ER 481
14
Imperial Chemical Industries v. Shatwell [1961], AIR 1175
15
Bowater v. Rowley Regis Corp, [1944], K.B. 476
12
 the harm. In case the plaintiff was only aware of the risk but has not given his consent then in
such a situation the defence of Volenti non-fit Injuria cannot be taken. In simple words just
because the plaintiff was aware of the harm does not imply that he/she has consented to suffer
the harm.
• Scienti non fit injuria: Mere knowledge does not mean consent to the risk. The principle of
scienti non-fit injuria means that mere awareness of the risk does not indicate that you agree to
take it. Thus knowledge of the risk is only a partial fulfilment of the conditions for the
application of Volenti.

* Smith v. Baker & sons [1891]16

The plaintiff worked for the defendant. A crane at the construction site where he worked lifted
boulders above their heads. Additionally, the plaintiff had complained to the defendant about
it. When stones fell on the plaintiff one day, seriously injuring him, he brought a claim for
damages against the defendant. The plaintiff had agreed to the risk of the task but not the
defendant's negligence. As a result, the Volenti non-fit Injuria doctrine could not be used, and
the defendant was found liable.

LIMITATIONS OF THE DOCTRINE OR EXCEPTIONS TO THE DEFENCE

The scope of the applicability of the doctrine i.e. Volenti non-fit injuria is limited. The limitations of this
doctrine are as follows:

1. Rescue Cases17
• In cases where the plaintiff voluntarily encounters a risk to rescue someone from imminent danger
because of negligence on the part of the defendant or his actions, then the defendant cannot take the
defence of Volenti. For example, A voluntarily jumped into a well to save B, B had fallen due to the
negligence of C. A while saving B suffered some personal injuries and sued C for the same. Here C
cannot take a defence of Volenti non-fit Injuria and will be liable.
* Haynes v. Harwood18
A two-horse cart had been left in the street by the defendant's servant. Stones were thrown at the
horses by a local children playing nearby. Women and children travelling on the road were put in
grave danger when the horses fled and began running frantically. A police officer who was on duty in
a nearby police station went to stop them. He sustained serious injuries while doing so. Volenti non-
fit injuria was the defendant's line of defence, but it was rejected. Even though the policeman was
only performing his duties, the defendant was nevertheless found liable.

16
Smith v. Baker & Sons, [1891] AC 325
17
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, supra note 6, at 5
18
Haynes v Harwood, [1935] 1 KB 146
13
2. Illegal Acts19

No consent can legalize any unlawful act. No one has the right to authorise another person to commit a crime.
This is one of the prime exceptions of this maxim. Even if every other essential is completely fulfilled, the
defence of Volenti cannot be taken if the act is illegal. For example:
• Fighting with naked fists: Both parties have freely consented to a combat with the use of their bare
fists. Fighting with bare hands is a prohibited act, thus if someone is hurt and sues the other person,
the defendant cannot use the defence of Volenti non fit injuria.
• Duelling with a sharp sword is not permitted; nonetheless, duelling is a game that can be played. The
defendant cannot raise the Volenti defence if they employ a sharp sword and someone is hurt and files
a claim.
• A shoots B then A cannot take the defence of Volenti by saying that B had given his consent for the
same to B. In simple words, any illegal and unlawful act cannot be justified by taking the defence
of Volenti non-fit injuria.
3. Breach of Statutory Duty20

This doctrine is not applicable in a situation where action relies on the breach of statutory duty.

* This limitation was clearly explained in Wheeler v. New Merton Boards ltd.21
In this case, the defendants installed a dangerous machine in a factory plant to be used by the
employees. The machine was not fenced or maintained as said in Factory and Workshop Act, 1901.
Due to its bad condition, a workman herein the plaintiff was injured during the course of his
employment work. The plaintiff sued the defendants for the same. It was held by the court that the
maxim Volenti could not be applied as a defence to a personal injury claim against an employer when
there is a breach of statutory duty from the employer’s side.

4. Negligence of the defendant22

If the defendant's negligence caused the injury, the doctrine isn't applicable. Generally, when the plaintiff
agrees to take some risks the normal presumption is that the defendant is not going to be negligent. If there
is any sort of negligence from the defendant’s side then he can be made liable for the act and the doctrine
of Volenti non-fit injuria is not applicable.

19
A.K. Jain: The Law of Torts, page 47, (Ascent Publications 2016)

20
Ibid.
21
Wheeler v. New Merton Board Mills Ltd, [1933] 2KB 669
22
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, supra note 6, at 5
14
 ▪ This was more clearly explained in Slater vs. Clay Cross Co. Ltd23, While traversing a
narrow tunnel on a railway track owned by the defendants, the plaintiff was hit and hurt by a
train. The defendants were aware that the public frequently used the tunnel. As a result, the
corporation had instructed the drivers to whistle and slow down as they entered the tunnel. The
train driver, well aware that it was dark in the tunnel, did not whistle or slow down and thus
the plaintiff couldn’t save herself and got injured. The court determined that the Volenti
defence could not be used because, although the plaintiff assumed some risk by entering the
tunnel, the danger was increased due to the driver's negligence in disregarding the instructions.
▪ Illustration, If "A" gives his consent to a surgical treatment, he won't be legally protected if it
goes wrong. However, if the procedure itself is unsuccessful owing to the surgeon's
negligence, he may file a lawsuit as he had not consented to the negligence of the surgeon.
5. Plaintiff is the wrongdoer
In case the plaintiff himself is the wrongdoer, he/she is not entitled to recover damages in case of an
injury. An individual cannot claim damages for his own wrong. However, the defence is not applicable
if the defendant commits a wrongful act irrespective of the wrongful act of the plaintiff in the first
place.
* In Bird vs Holbrook24
The defendant had fixed a spring gun to protect his garden without putting any warning sign
or a notice board for awareness. The plaintiff mistakenly entered his garden and was injured
by the spring gun. The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff and said that one who places a
spring gun as a trap without putting any warning will be held liable and must pay damages as
compensation.
6. Act of God
An act of god refers to a severe, unanticipated natural event for which no human is responsible. It is
unreasonable for to hold any person liable for damages caused which was inevitable. For an act to
qualify as an act of God, it must meet the following criteria:
1) It must result from a natural cause; and
2) It must be an extraordinary event that a reasonable person could not have predicted or expected.
7. Private Defence
According to Section 96 of the Indian Penal Code, nothing that is done to exercise the right of
Private Defence is an offence.25 The law gives every individual the permission and right to protect
themselves from any external force that might result in any harm to human body or property by
taking reasonable and necessary force and the injuries resulting of such force is non actionable.

23
Slater v. Clay Co Ltd, [1956] 2 QB 264
24
Bird v. Holbrook, [1825] 130 Eng. Rep. 911
25
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 96, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).
15
 CHAPTER 3: JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IN 18TH AND 19TH CENTURY
CASE LAWS

1. Ramanuja Mudali v. M. Gangan [1983]26

* Facts: The plaintiff had to cross the river channel to reach his land where he was cultivating.
The river channel was to the south of the defendants land. He used to go through the defendants
land to reach the river channel to divert the river channel water to his land for irrigation at
nights. The defendant had set up the live wire to protect his land. One day the plaintiff trod
upon a live electric wire and got electrocuted. As a result, the plaintiff suffered grievous
injuries.
* Issue: A trespasser trespasses at his own risk and there is no duty on an occupier to ensure or
survey his land for possible dangers. However, though a trespasser has no right to active
protection yet the occupier owes a trespasser a duty to indicate or warn to reduce or avert
danger. The occupier owes a duty not to cause wilful injury except what is reasonably
necessary.
* Held: The defendant claimed the defence of Volenti but the law of torts recognises the duty
even to a trespasser. Hence, the defendants were held liable.
* Critical Analysis: The defendant here used unreasonable forces to protect his land. Moreover,
he gave the plaintiff no warnings prior to setting up the live wire. The defendant intended to
physically harm whoever trespassed his property for which he should be liable. Even though
the defendant was committing a wrong by trespassing, the plaintiff’s misdeeds in the first place
makes him liable simply because of the extent of the wrong actions. the plaintiff’s wrong is of
greater degree than the defendant in this case. Moreover, it is common sense to act according
to the extent of the circumstances and is the norm of the society. For instance, a theft is to be
reported first to the local police/authority and not to the military simply because the situation
does not call for the requirement of military.

2. Titchener v British Railways Board [1983]27

* Facts: The plaintiff, a 15 year old girl, took a short cut across a railway and was hit by a train.
As a result, she was severely injured. The fence had a gap through which she had crossed. It
was also accepted that the she was aware of the gap. Moreover there was a pathway leading to
the gap which suggested that there was repeated trespass. The defendant raised the defence
of Volenti.
* Issue: The scope of the duty owed to trespassers

26
Ramanuja Mudali v. M. Gangan, [1983] Civil Revn. Petn. No. 690 of 1982
27
Titchener v British Railways Board, [1983] 1 WLR 1427

16
 * Held: On the facts of this case the Defendants did not owe a duty to a 15 year old trespasser
who was fully aware of the risks. Even if the Defendant did owe a duty of care the defence
of volenti would succeed.
* Critical analysis: The plaintiff here was well aware of what she was doing and the possible
dangers of it. The defendant had taken the required care by making fences which conveyed to
the people that there is some danger beyond the fence. It is not realistically possible for the
defendant (the Railways Board) to ensure that the fence has no gaps on a regular basis as the
railways run for several miles. Thus, the plaintiff was careless and is rightly made liable.

3. Dann v Hamilton [1939]28

* Facts: The plaintiff was a passenger in a car which was driven by a drunk driver. The plaintiff
was aware that the driver was drunk and was not under any necessity or coercion to travel by
the car driven by the drunk driver. The car met with an accident due to the driver’s
drunkenness. As a result, the driver died and the plaintiff was injured. The plaintiff claimed
damages from the driver’s personal representative.

* Issue: The claimant was aware of the drunken state of the driver and willingly accepted to ride
in his car with the risks of accident. However, in this case the driver’s drunkenness was hardly
extreme.

* Held: Since the case is not one of the extreme cases, the defence of Volenti did not apply and
the claimant was entitled to recover damages.

* Critical analysis: It is the law and common sense to not drink and drive. Generally in such
cases the plaintiff is held liable as he himself consented to riding in the car driven by an
extremely drunk driver. However due to the change of facts in this case, the plaintiff was
entitled to damages. The changes in facts being the alcohol or intoxication level of the driver
was very low due to which the plaintiff might have considered it to be safe.

28
Dann v Hamilton [1939], 1 KB 509

17
4. Padmavati v. Dugganaika [1975]29

* Facts: Two strangers including the plaintiff took a lift in a jeep while the driver was taking
jeep for filling petrol. Unexpectedly, the front wheel of the jeep flew away and the jeep
toppled. Both the strangers were thrown out of the jeep. One of them instantly died and the
other was injured. the jeep had not been driven rashly or negligently and it was an accident
that one of the bolts fixing the right front wheel came out. Moreover the defendant had also
got the jeep checked periodically.

* Held: It was held by the court that neither driver nor master is liable due to two reasons i.e.
First, it was a clear accident. Second, the strangers voluntarily entered into a jeep due to which
defence of Volenti non-fit injuria can be successfully pleaded.

* Critical analysis: This is a case of an accident that was unexpected and inevitable. No
reasonable person could have predicted that the bolts would fly away in spite of regular vehicle
check-ups. Thus it is not reasonable to hold any person accountable for an inevitable accident
that no one saw coming.

5. Wooldridge v. Sumner [1963]30

• Facts: The claimant was a photographer working at a horse show. He was situated within the ring
where the horse show took place (rather than behind the spectator barriers) when one of the horses
galloped towards him at a significant speed after the rider lost control of it, knocking him down. The
claimant sued the defendant for negligence.
• Issues: If negligence is established, a defendant may still avoid liability by raising the defence
of volenti non fit injuria. The issue was whether the defence applied in this case, given that the claimant
was within the ring rather than behind the protective barriers.
• Held: In the case sporting events, however, spectators can be taken to know of and consent to the risk
of the sportsman making errors of judgement or skill, unless the sportsman was acting with deliberate
or reckless disregard for the spectator’s safety. In this case, the sportsman merely made an error of
judgement, and the claimant had chosen to position himself close enough to risk such errors affecting
him. Hence, the court held the defendant not liable.
• Critical analysis: Similar to the implied consent of the spectators, the consent of the photographer is
also implied as he chose to stand so close to a possible danger. Since the sportsman or the horse-rider
lost control of the horse which is the sport itself, the sportsperson can’t be held negligent as he was

29
Padmavati v Dugganika, MANU/KA/0061/1974
30
Wooldridge v Sumner, [1963] 2 QB 43
18
 merely playing the sport. It can be compared to an example of a batsman in cricket hitting the ball and
the ball then hits a spectator. The batsman is was merely playing cricket and it is unreasonable to make
him accountable.
6. Gurmel Singh v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011]31
C.M.A(MD) No. 1492 of 2006
• Facts: A bulldozer was engaged in dismantling operation of a private building where a small portion
of the wall had fallen on the plaintiff while he was watching the operation as a spectator. As a result
he sustained injuries and a permanent disability of his lower limbs. The defendant said that the plaintiff
was standing behind the building during the demolition and the driver of the bulldozer could not have
seen someone standing behind the wall. The defendant argued that it was a case volenti non-fit injuria
as the plaintiff was voluntarily present near the demolition site knowing the risks.
• Held: The plaintiff claimed Rs 5,11,377 as compensation. However, the tribunal reduced it to Rs
4,11,377 because of the plaintiff’s carelessness.

31
Gurmel Singh v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., [2011] C.M.A(MD) No. 1492 of 2006

19
 CHAPTER 4: JUDICIAL VIEW IN 21ST CENTURY
1. G. Vasantha v. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Others32 [2019]
• Facts: The defendant had installed an electric pole in the plaintiff’s open agricultural field. While
grazing cows in the field, a cow rubbed itself against the pole and its horns got entangled with the earth
wire in the post. When the cow tried to release itself, the earth wire snapped and the cow came in
contact with the live wire. The plaintiff’s husband rushed to rescue the cow and, in the process, got
electrocuted and died.
• Held: the defendants had installed the electric pole in an open field. It is well known that any cattle
passing by would have the tendency to rub itself against the pole. Hence the behavior of the petitioner’s
cow cannot be said as unreasonable. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to damages.
• Critical analysis: This is a rescue case which is an exception to the application of volenti non fit injuria.
Moreover, the defendant’s lack of care is also established as they had installed the electric pole in an
open agricultural field. A common, reasonable man could have foreseen a situation of cattle grazing
nearby getting into danger because of the electric pole. Hence, the plaintiff has rightly been
compensated for his injuries.

2. Narvada Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others33 [2017]

• Facts: The plaintiff had got herself operated for family planning by medical officer. Despite having
been operated upon, she conceived and gave birth to a child. She was suffering financial loss owing to
the maintenance of the new-born child and filed a suit for compensation for the same as well as for
causing physical and mental agony to her. Defendant contested the claim on the ground that the
conception occurred after 13 years of her operation and that there were chances of pregnancy after
sterilization operation for various hormonal reasons. Moreover, the plaintiff could have
consulted/visited the hospital to avoid birth of the child but she failed to avail the possible alternative.
There was no negligence on part of doctor in operation nor the was the operation unsuccessful.
• Issue: Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to any damages on the doctrine of Volenti-non-fit injuria as
alleged?
• Held: The court held that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
• Critical analysis: It is important to note the facts here that the operation by itself was not unsuccessful
and there was no negligence done by the surgeon either. The defendant conceived a child after 13 years
of the operation and that too because of the hormonal changes in her own body for which nobody else
is responsible. Hence, the courts have rightly stated that the doesn’t hold merit.

32
G. Vasantha v. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Others, 2019 Indlaw MAD 1565
33
Narvada Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 2017 Indlaw HP 763

20
3. Aktharunnisa v. Union of India34 [2022]
• Facts: The plaintiff’s husband, the deceased, was a bona fide passenger travelling in train. While he
was alighting from moving train at a non-scheduled railway station , he lost his balance and
accidentally fell down. He sustained grievous injuries resulting in his death. The defendant claimed
that it is a case of Volenti non fit injuria as it was not an accidental fall from the train but a deliberate
act to get down from the moving train.
• Held: The court held that the defendant was not liable as the death of the deceased occurred due to his
own negligence as he tried to alight from a moving train.
• Critical analysis: It is important to note the facts here that the plaintiff was trying to get down at a non-
scheduled station from a moving train. He took the risk on himself by doing so and no danger was
imposed on him by the defendant. Hence, the defence is appropriately used in this case.
4. Sri M N Mallikarjuna v. Union of India35 [2022]
• Facts: The applicant was travelling by train with a valid ticket. It is said that the compartment was
overcrowded and he was standing at the door. There was a sudden jerk and jolt due to which the
applicant fell down and sustained multiple injuries. The defendant tried to claim that it is a case of
Volenti non fit injuria.
• Held: It was held that the applicant was entitled to damages and the defence of Volenti could not be
claimed.
• Critical analysis: This is in contrast to the previous case as the plaintiff did not wilfully stand by the
door. The train was overcrowded and he had no choice but to stand where he got space even with a
valid ticket. Hence, when the train jolted and plaintiff was injured not because of any risk he had
consented to. Thus, the defendant was rejected the defence and made liable.
5. Urmila Devi and others v. MCD and others36 [2016]
• Facts: The sewer near the area was uncovered with no walls or barricades informing the residents of
the area that this particular area was unsafe. The earth near this sewer was slippery due to the
negligence of the defendant who had not maintained the sewer. The deceased saw two small children
drowning in the sewer as their rickshaw had disbalanced. In an attempt to rescue them he jumped into
the sewer and managed to save one child. The rescuer (deceased) and the second child died because of
extreme filth and gases.
• Held: The plaintiff is entitled to damages as it is a rescue case where the defence of Volenti non fit
injuria cannot be pleaded.

34
Aktharunnisa v. Union of India, MFA 6657 of 2014

35
Sri M N Mallikarjuna v. Union of India, MFA 2342 of 2014.
36
Urmila Devi and others v. MCD and others, 2016 Indlaw DEL 4073.

21
• Critical analysis: This is a rescue case where the defence of Volenti non fit injuria ceases to exist.
Moreover, the defendant (authorities) have been negligent in maintaining the sewer systems and the
hygiene of the area because of which the accident has occurred. Hence they are liable to pay
compensation.

22
 CHAPTER 5: CRITICAL ANALYSIS
A comparison of 19th century cases and 21st century cases
• The Occupier's Liability Act of 1984 mandates that all property owners take reasonable steps to make
their properties safe for anyone who enters, including trespassers. However, the Volenti non fit injuria
principle has been used in situations where the trespasser purposefully exposed oneself to risk.
Titchener v British Railway Board [1983]37 Tomlinson v Congleton Borough
Council [2003]38
• The plaintiff crossed the fence through a gap • The plaintiff, a trespasser, dived into a lake
onto the railway track and was hit by a train. despite warning signs, hit his head and broke his
• Volenti non fit injuria was successfully applied. neck.
• Defendants did not owe a duty to the • Volenti non fit injuria was successfully applied.
trespasser, the plaintiff who was fully aware of The house of lords held that the defendant was
the risks. not liable as the risk arose from the claimant’s
own action.
Ramanuja Mudali v. M. Gangan [1983] 39 G. Vasantha v. Chairman, Tamil Nadu
• The plaintiff used to go through the Electricity Board and Others40 [2019]
defendant’s land to cross a river channel and • The defendant had installed an electric pole in
reach his land. The plaintiff trod upon an an open field. While grazing the cows, a cow
electric wire set up by the defendant to protect was electrocuted. The plaintiff rushed to rescue
his land. the cow and in the process got electrocuted and
• The defendant claimed the defence of Volenti died.
non fit injuria but the defendant was required • The defendant claimed the defence of Volenti
to take reasonable safety measures. non fit injuria but the defendant had been
• The defendants were held liable and the negligent in installing an electric field in an
plaintiff was entitled to compensation. open field.
• Hence the defendants were held liable and the
plaintiff was entitled to compensation.

37
Titchener v British Railway Board, [1983] 1 WLR 1427

38
Tomlinson v. Congleton Borough Council,[2003] UKHL 47

39
Ramanuja Mudali v. M. Gangan, [1983] Civil Revn. Petn. No. 690 of 1982
40
G. Vasantha v. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Others, 2019 Indlaw MAD 1565
23
 Morris v Murray [1990] 41
• Both the defendant and the claimant were
drunk and the defendant with a pilot license
took his aircraft for flight to which the
claimant also agreed. The aircraft crashed and
the defendant was killed and claimant
seriously injured.
• Volenti non fit injuria was used as the
claimant accepted the ride in an aircraft from
an obviously heavily intoxicated pilot.
Anita Paul Singh v. Tata AIG General
Insurance [2018]42
• Car hit a lorry from behind resulting in death of
driver of car and passenger travelling in it.
Driver of the car was drunk at the time of
accident and the passenger entered the vehicle
knowing it.
• Volenti non fit injuria was applied and
claimants are not entitled to compensation

Critical Analysis
1) In this section, there is a lack of information or clear laws regarding the scope of duty owed to
trespassers.
Trespass is an not only an offence under tort law but also under criminal law. Thus making it both a
civil liability and criminal offence. However there is a major difference between both i.e. intention.
Someone simply walking across your property to get elsewhere is a nuisance but does not justify deadly
force. For example, in Mumbai, a series of burglaries occurred in a neighbourhood. A college student
at a costume party asked a homeowner to use their phone still in costume. The owner shot him through
the door killing him. No action was taken. The law is that reasonable safety measures ought to be taken
by the property owner but there is not much clarity as to what is reasonable and what is not. Similarly
it is also unclear in which cases the owner owes a duty to trespassers.
2) Lack of clarity regarding the factors that constitute a rescue case.
Rescue cases in tort law are an exemption to the application of the defence of volenti non fit injuria.it
is when the plaintiff voluntarily comes to rescue someone from a danger created by the defendant. The
defendant in such a case cannot avail the defence of Volenti. However, what exactly constitutes a
rescue case still holds doubt. For example in the above case of G. Vasantha v. Chairman, Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board and Others, the plaintiff rushed to rescue a cow in danger. How can the cow be
compensated for the harm caused by the defendant is also unclear.
3) What trespassing norms should be followed?
Trespassing norms must be propagated. For example, trespassers with no intention to harm should be
warned before taking actual action against them.
4) What elements are required to constitute implied consent?

41
Morris v Murray, [1990] 3 All ER 801
42
Smt. Anita Balasaheb Mote v. Tata AIG General Insurance Co, Civil appeal no. 2253 of 2018
24
 There exists high lack of clarity and information as what can and cannot be considered as implied
consent. The matter is still highly subjective and prone to misuse. This calls for certain basic elements
of implied consent to be established.

POSITION IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Similar concept exists in the US and is known as "Assumption of Risk" or "Voluntary Assumption of Risk"
in US tort law. In the US law of torts, the defence of assumption of risk prohibits or limits a plaintiff's
entitlement to compensation against a negligent tortfeasor. As with Indian tort law, the assumption of risk may
be explicit or inferred. American courts typically treat express assumption of risk as a contract issue in tort
disputes. US legal systems further distinguish between primary and secondary implied assumption of risk.
The defendant owes the plaintiff no duty of care in primary assumption of risk, and therefore cannot be held
legally liable for negligence in that regard. Players at sporting events are a common illustration of primary
assumption of risk. When a defendant has a duty of care to the plaintiff and breaches that duty, it is said to be
secondary assumption of risk. The doctrine of voluntary assumption of risk shares its expressions with the
defences of consent and contributory negligence differing only with the conditions to which the principle is
applied. None of them are identical or derived from the other, rather all are derivatives of a common source.
Of late, the doctrine in the US has been much discussed in regard to particular type of cases i.e. those brought
by workmen against their employers to recover for injuries during they suffered during the course of their
employment.
The purpose of this doctrine in the States is also similar to the purpose mentioned earlier in this study. It is for
this simple fact that a person has the right to protect himself from external violence, imposition, coercion etc
but the common law does not assume to protect him from the effects of his own self and from the consequences
of his voluntary actions or of his careless misconduct. Lord Justice Bowen in Thomas v. Quartermaine was of
the view that “Neither knowledge of a danger voluntarily encountered nor consent is a defence which, while
admitting the breach of a duty, justifies or excuses it, or which debars the plaintiff from recovering because
himself a wrongdoer”.
Assumption of risk case- O'Neill v. Windshire-Copeland Associates43
The plaintiff after consuming alcohol, fell backward over a second-story balcony railing at an apartment
complex and became quadriplegic. When the apartment was built, the building code required such balcony
railings to be 48 inches high. However the balcony railing at issue here was only 32 inches high. The plaintiff
filed a suit for negligence and claimed compensation for her injuries. The trial court held the defendant
negligent per se because its balcony violated the height requirement of the building code. The trial court also
found the plaintiff contributorily negligent based on which the court ruled in favour of the defendant.44

43
O’Neill v. Windshire-Copeland Associates, 267 Va. 605, 595 S.E.2d 281 (Va. 2004)
44
Bohlen, Francis H. “Voluntary Assumption of Risk. I.” Harvard Law Review, vol. 20, no. 1, 1906, pp. 14–34. JSTOR,
https://doi.org/10.2307/1322882. (Accessed 15 Oct. 2022).

25
POSITION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

The Indian tort law runs parallel to the English tort law in many aspects. In English tort law, Volenti non fit
injuria is a full defence, i.e. it absolves the tortfeasor of all liability. The two prime elements of this defence
include: awareness of the nature and extent of the risks involved and the consent (expressed or implied) of the
claimant. Mere knowledge of risk is insufficient and the consent must be wilful and free. Generally it is
difficult for the defendant to show the presence of both elements. Thus, comparative negligence serves to be
a better defence in many cases despite comparative negligence being only a partial defence meaning it can
only reduce the payable compensation rather than full exclusion of liability. The ruling in Titchener v. British
Railways Board, which was discussed above, serves as a reminder of the uncertainty that still exists regarding
the defence of volenti non fit injuria. The main uncertainty is whether the plaintiff's simple consensual
exposure to a danger due to the defendant's negligence can give rise to the defence, either on the basis that the
plaintiff's actions constitutes the necessary agreement to forego a claim, or that agreement as such is necessary.
45

45
Jaffey, A. J. E. “Volenti Non Fit Injuria.” The Cambridge Law Journal, vol. 44, no. 1, 1985, pp. 87–110. JSTOR,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4506702. (Accessed 15 Oct. 2022).
26
 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
SUGGESTIONS TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEMS
• The applicability of the defence of Volenti non fit injuria requires additional adjustments to reflect the
basic elements necessary for implied consent. Basic elements constituting implied consent should be
established in order to do away with the ambiguity regarding the same. For example, wilful cooperation
or silence during the act can be considered as implied consent.
• The scope of duty owed to trespassers and as to what are reasonable safety measures and what are not
should be elaborated and firmly established. For example: A verbal or written warning to trespassers
who do not intend harm before actual use of force, construction of compound walls with safety wire
coils etc.
• More clarity as to what cases are rescue cases and the degree to which compensation for damages
maybe levied.
CONCLUSION

• The doctrine of volenti acquires a vital position in the general defences under law of torts. It protects the
defendant from any liability in the event that someone is hurt or harmed while the act is being performed
with the plaintiff's full and free consent. It is a significant defence that keeps people from exploiting
defendants in cases where injury or harm occurs because of their own negligence. Since the claimant freely
accepted the risk of potential harm, the defence of Volenti non fit injuria is an absolute defence, relieving
the defendant of all liabilty.

• For the successful application of this maxim, courts need to ensure certain conditions or essentials are
fulfilled. The maxim only functions as a defence when all of its requirements are present. The
repercussions of being aware of the risk and freely providing consent are quite definite and detailed.

• Around the world, volenti is recognised as a valid legal defence. It is known as the assumption of risk
principle in the United States, the volentio principle in Canada, which is known as the Volenti principle in
England , India, and the law of delict in Scotland.

• To avoid exploitation of the maxim by the defendants, there are some limitations to the applicability of
this defence. Hence, the defence of volenti non fit injuria is one of limited scope in tort law. There are
situations when the application of Volenti non-fit Injuria can be ruled out such as when the defendant is
negligible. Overall, the maxim serves as a good general defence as if applied successfully, it absolves the
tortfeasor of all liability.

27
 CHAPTER 6: BIBLIOGRAPHY
➢ ARTICLES
• Dheeraj Diwakar, “Volenti Non-Fit Injuria: An Analysis”, Manupatra Articles, 2021
• Bohlen, Francis H., “Voluntary Assumption of Risk. I.” Harvard Law Review, vol. 20, no. 1,
pp. 14–34, (1906), JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1322882, ISSN: 0017-811X
• Schaber, P., "The Volenti Maxim", The Journal of Ethics, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 79-89., (2020),
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-019-09310-5, ISSN: 1572-8609
• “Volenti Non Fit Injuria.” The Yale Law Journal, vol. 12, no. 4, 1903, pp. 238–40. JSTOR,
https://doi.org/10.2307/781943, ISSN: 0044-0094
• Jaffey A. J. E. ,Volenti Non Fit Injuria, The Cambridge Law Journal, vol. 44(1), pp. 87–110,
(1985), http://www.jstor.org/stable/4506702
➢ BOOKS
• Ratanlal and Dhirajlal: The Law of Torts, Publisher: Generic, Edition 2020 ISBN:
9789386515667
• A.K. Jain: The Law of Torts, Publisher: Ascent Publications, Edition 2016 ISBN: 978-81-
935556-0-6
• Dr. R.K. Bangia: Law of Torts, Publisher: Allahabad Law Agency, Edition 24th 2019 ISBN:
9788189530914
• John William Salmond: The Law of Torts: A Treatise on the English Law of Liability for
Civil Injuries, Publisher: Ingram short title, Edition 2012 ISBN: 9780421343009
• S.P. Singh: Law of Torts, Publisher: Universal Law Publishing, Edition 2015 ISBN:
8175349433
• B.M. Gandhi: Law of Torts, Publisher: Eastern Book Company, Edition 4th ISBN: 978-
9351453246
➢ CASE LAWS

• Lakshmi Rajan v. Malar Hospital Ltd. III (1998) CPJ 586

• R. v. Williams [1998], 1 S.C.R. 1128
• R v. Clarence [1991], 4 All ER 481
• Imperial Chemical Industries v. Shatwell [1961], AIR 1175
• Bowater v. Rowley Regis Corp [1944], K.B. 476
• Smith v. Baker & Sons, [1891] AC 325
• Haynes v Harwood, [1935] 1 KB 146
• Wheeler v. New Merton Board Mills Ltd, [1933] 2KB 669
• Slater v. Clay Co Ltd, [1956] 2 QB 264
• Bird v. Holbrook, [1825] 130 Eng. Rep. 911
28
 • Ramanuja Mudali v. M. Gangan, [1983]
• Titchener v British Railways Board, [1983] 1 WLR 1427
• Dann v Hamilton [1939], 1 KB 509

• Padmavati v Dugganika, MANU/KA/0061/1974

• Wooldridge v Sumner, [1963] 2 QB 43

• Gurmel Singh v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., [2011]
• G. Vasantha v. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Others, 2019 MAD 1565
• Narvada Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 2017 HP 763
• Aktharunnisa v. Union of India, MFA 6657 of 2014
• Sri M N Mallikarjuna v. Union of India, MFA 2342 of 2014.
• Urmila Devi and others v. MCD and others, 2016 DEL 4073.
• Titchener v British Railway Board, [1983] 1 WLR 1427
• Tomlinson v. Congleton Borough Council,[2003] UKHL 47
• Ramanuja Mudali v. M. Gangan, [1983]
• G. Vasantha v. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Others, [2019] MAD 1565
• Morris v Murray, [1990] 3 All ER 801
• Smt. Anita Balasaheb Mote v. Tata AIG General Insurance Co, [2018]

• O’Neill v. Windshire-Copeland Associates, 267 Va. 605, 595 S.E.2d 281 (Va. 2004)

➢ WEBLIOGRAPHY
• Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/volenti_non_fit_injuria
• Dheeraj Diwakar, Volenti Non-Fit Injuria: An Analysis, MANUPATRA
https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Volenti-Non-Fit-Injuria-An-Analysis

• SCC Online
• Merriam webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/estoppel
• Oxford learner’s dictionaries,
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/tort

➢ WEBSITES DATABASES
• www.manupatra.com
• www.scconline.com

29
• www.jstor.com
• www.heinonline.com
• www.proquest.com
• www.ebsco.com

30