Legal Principle: a Person is Liable for His Negligence When He Owed a Duty of Care to Others and Commits a Breach of that Duty·Causing Injury Thereby. Valenti Non-fit Injuria is a Defence to - Legal Reasoning

Advertisement Remove all ads
MCQ

Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principle:

  1. A person is liable for his negligence when he owed a duty of care to others and commits a breach of that duty·causing injury thereby.
  2. Valenti non-fit injuria is a defence to negligence.

Factual Situation: Anil and his wife, Reena, were in a shop as customers, where a skylight in the roof of the shop was broken, owing to the negligence of the contractors engaged in repairing the roof, and a portion of the glass fell and struck Anil causing him a severe shock. Reena, who was standing close to him, was not touched by the falling glass, but, reasonably believing her husband to be in danger, she instinctively clutched his arm, and tried to pull him from the spot. In doing this, she strained her-leg in such a way as to bring about a recurrence of thrombosis. Anil and Reena are claiming compensation for their injuries which were caused due to the negligence of the shop owners. The shop owners are denying liability on the grounds of  Valenti non-fit injuria. The defense of Valenti non-fit injuria.

Options

  • is available in respect of husband

  • is available in respect of wife

  • is available in respect of both husband and wife

  • is not available in respect of both husband and wife

Advertisement Remove all ads

Solution

is not available in respect of both husband and wife

Explanation:

Volenti nonfit iniuria (or injuria) (Latin: "to a willing person, injury is not done") is a common-law doctrine which states that if someone willingly places himself in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, he/she will not able to bring a claim against the other party in tort or delict.  Volenti applies only to the risk which a reasonable  person would consider them as having assumed by  their actions;   
The defense has two main elements:   
The claimant was fully aware of all the risks involved,  including both the nature and the extent of the risk;  and   
The claimant expressly (by statement) or implicitly (by actions) consented to waive all claims for damages.  Knowledge of the risk is not sufficient: science non est volens ("knowing is not volunteering"). Consent must be free and voluntary, i.e. not brought about by duress.  In the case presented before us neither there is knowledge of the risk involved nor there was an express or implicit waiver of claims for damages hence the defense of Volenti nonfit iniuria is not available in respect of husband and wife.

Concept: Law of Torts (Entrance Exams)
  Is there an error in this question or solution?
Advertisement Remove all ads
Advertisement Remove all ads
Share
Notifications

View all notifications


      Forgot password?
View in app×