Volenti Non Fit Injuria

The term Volenti Non Fit Injuria is a Latin maxim which refers to a willing person, an injury is
not done. It is a common law doctrine, according to this doctrine the person who voluntarily gives
consent for any harm to suffer would not be liable to claim any damages for the same and this
consent serves as a good defence against the plaintiff. The person who himself voluntarily waived
or abandoned his right cannot have any claim over it. Provided this doctrine is only applicable to
the extent that a normally prudent person would have assumed to have suffered the risk.

From the plaintiff’s point of view, it can also be termed as ‘consent to run a risk’. In this context,
the defendant can run out of risk and can prevent himself from the tort liability arising out of the
first case. That is if, for example, consent given to a person for visiting his house can save him
from the trespass to land.

If A went to see a motor racing matching at the stadium. While watching the game he is hit by the
car accident, because of the collision. Then A doesn’t have any claim against stadium authorities.
As the authorities have the defence for the maxim

It may also happen that the consent so obtained may either be express or implies by the act or the
conduct of the parties. Like where a spectator at a motor race was being injured by a car which
reached there because of the collusion between the two during the race, and therefore the spectator
was not liable for any action against the car owner and neither towards the club. Similarly, a person
going on a highway is presumed to consent to the risk of pure accidents

For taking the defence of Volenti Non Fit Injuria it is necessary that:

a. The consent must be free

b. Consent should not be obtained by fraud:

c. Mere knowledge does not imply assent

d. Harm should result from such act for which the consent has been given: Thus, if while
playing cricket, the person gets injured by the ball he can’t have any claim against another as he
himself has given consent towards it. But the same injury is done to him by negligently or by
intentionally then the injured person can have a claim against him as he doesn’t give consent for
the harm to suffer for the negligent act of another.

LIMITATIONS/ EXCEPTIONS
The scope of Doctrine is curtailed in Rescue cases:

Rescue cases form an exception in the applicability of the doctrine. When the plaintiff voluntarily
jumps into the risk for saving somebody else, happened because of the wrongful act of the
defendant he will not be liable to find shelter under the doctrine Volenti Non Fit Injuria.

As in the case of Haynes vs. Harwood here the defendant’s servant left two-horse van unattended
in the street. Nearby there were some children were playing. A boy from one of them threw a
stone towards the horse and horse bolted as a result the horse started running here and there. This
created danger to women and children in the street living nearby. A policeman saw all this and
dived into the scene to prevent the danger. Though he succeeded but was severely injured in doing
so. Defendant was held liable, even when the defendant pleaded that he was just a policeman and
was doing his duty.

Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea

An act does not make anyone guilty unless there is a criminal intent or a guilty mind.

The two basic components of criminal law is Actus Reus and Mens Rea. In criminal law for any
act to be criminal in nature it must be done with a guilty mind.

Actus Reus is the wrongful act committed and Mens Rea is the blameworthy state of mind behind
such acts. It states that a person is guilty of a criminal act only if such acts are accompanied by a
criminal intention.

When a person is attacked by another person with an intention to cause grievous hurt or injury then
it is a crime. But when the person who was attacked causes injury to the other person in private
defence then it is an unintentional act. In the first scenario guilty mind was present but in the
second case no intention of causing harm was there. The second act is categorised as self defence
and is dealt under section 96 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code. In the first act the person is guilty
of criminal act.

So far as the Indian Penal code is concerned it specifically defines the state of mind required
to be proved to fastened criminal liability for that particular offence. However, degree of
mens rea varies from crime to crime which may be knowledge, intention, negligence or
recklessness.
For instance: in case of offence of murder: intention to cause death has to be proved while in
case of offence of receiving stolen property the mere knowledge the goods are stolen is
sufficient.

Exception to the Applicability of the Maxim

However the statement without a guilty mind there is no crime is subjected to certain exceptions
such as strict liability:

These includes offence against the State for egs. Waging war Sec-121 IPC, Sedition 124 A,
Offence of Kidnapping, Counterfeiting Coins.

Res Ipsa Loquitur

Res Ipsa Loquitur literally means Things speak for itself.

Res Ipsa Loquitur is a maxim, the application of which shifts the burden of proof on the defendant.
Generally, in a case it is the plaintiff who has to provide evidence to prove the defendant's
negligence. There is however, a change when this maxim is used. The burden of proof shifts to the
defendant. There is a presumption of negligence on part of the defendant and it is upto him to
prove his non-liability and that it was not his act which caused the plaintiff's injury. The defendant
leads the evidence

in some circumstances, the mere fact of an accidents occurrence raises an inference of negligence
so as to establish a prima facie (at first sight) case. It is a symbol for the rule that the fact of the
occurrence of an injury taken with the surrounding circumstances may permit an inference or raise
a presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiff's prima facie case and present a question of
fact for defendant to meet wit an explanation. It is merely a short way of saying that the
circumstances attendant on the accident are of such a nature to justify a jury in light of common
sense and past experience in inferring that the accident was probably the result of the defendants
negligence, in the absence of explanation or other evidence which the jury believes

The principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur was first put forward by J.Baron Pollock in Byrne v. Boadle.
Byrne was struck by a barrel of flour falling from a second-storey window. The court's
presumption was that a barrel of flour falling out of a second-storey window is itself sufficient
evidence of negligence. While giving the judgement J. Baron Pollock said-

We are all of opinion that the rule must be absolute to enter the verdict for the plaintiff. The learned
counsel was quite right in saying that there are many accidents from which no presumption of
negligence can arise, but I think it would be wrong to lay down as a rule that in no case can a
presumption of negligence arise from the fact of an accident. Suppose in this case the barrel had
rolled out of the warehouse and fallen on the plaintiff, how could he possibly ascertain from what
cause it occurred? It is the duty of persons who keep barrels in a warehouse to take care that they
do not roll out, and I think that such a case would, beyond all doubt, afford prima facie evidence
of negligence. A barrel could not roll out of a warehouse without some negligence, and to say that
a plaintiff who is injured by it must call witnesses from the warehouse to prove negligence seems
to me preposterous.

The present case upon the evidence comes to this, a man is passing in front of the premises of a
dealer in flour, and there falls down upon him a barrel of flour. I think it apparent that the barrel
was in the custody of the defendant who occupied the premises, and who is responsible for the acts
of his servants who had the control of it; and in my opinion the fact of its falling is prima facie
evidence of negligence, and the plaintiff who was injured by it is not bound to show that it could
not fall without negligence, but if there are any facts inconsistent with negligence it is for the
defendant to prove them.

Applicability of the case

The maxim applies where:

1. injurious agency was under the control of the management; and

2. accident is such, as in ordinary course of action such act/ things would not have happened if,
those responsible for the act have exercised due care.

Indian Case :Law:

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Subhagwanti (AIR 1966 SC 1750)

Facts: Three suits for damages were filed by the respondents as heirs of three persons who died as
a result of the collapse of the Clock Tower in Chandni Chowk, Delhi, belonging to the appellant-
Corporation, formerly the Municipal Committee of Delhi.

The building was 80 years old and the life of the structure of the top storey, having regard to the
type of mortar use, could be only 40 to 45 years and the middle storey could be saved for another
10 years. The collapse of the Clock Tower was due to thrust of the arches on the top portion. If an
expert had examined this building specifically for the purpose he might have found out that it was
likely to fall. When the building was inspected after the collapse it was found that it had
deteriorated to such an extent that it was reduced to powder without any cementing properties

Decision of Supreme Court: In our opinion, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies in the
circumstances of the present case. It is not the case of the appellant that there was any earthquake
or storm or any other natural event which was unforeseen and which could have been the cause of
the fall of the Clock Tower. In these circumstances, the mere fact that there was fall of the Clock
Tower tells its own story in raising an inference of negligence so as to establish a prima facie case
against the appellant.
In view of the fact that the building had passed its normal age at which the mortar could be expected
to deteriorate it was the duty of the appellant to carry out careful and periodical inspection for the
purpose of determining whether, in fact, deterioration had taken placed whether any precautions
were necessary to strengthen the building.

Applying the principle to the present case it is manifest that the appellant is guilty of negligence
because of the potential danger of the Clock Tower maintained by it having not been subjected to
a careful and systematic inspection which it was the duty of the appellant to carry out.

Ubi jus ibi remedium

Where there is a right there is a remedy

The principle of this maxim has been at all times recognized in this country. Probably, in former
times, it was more looked to as a guide than at present, inasmuch as the remedies provided by the
law were not then so numerous, nor so well understood or applied in redressing grievances, and
first principles had to be more regarded in the recognition of an evil, and the finding a suitable
remedy. At the present day, however, remedies seem to be in advance of rights, and the Legislature
seems to anticipate defects by its numerous and comprehensive enactments ; but still the maxim
exists, and is ready, when necessary, to supply every defect and lend its aid to redress every wrong.

Though the remedy here provided/ allowed to may be said to apply to apply to all possible abuse
of right by wrong, by whomsoever and from whatever cause arising, it may, however, be more
particularly said to apply to all those cases where the common or statute law gives a right, or
prohibits a wrong ; and generally, whether or not any actual damage has arisen from violation of
the right.

It must be borne in mind, that the right provided/ allowed to is one in contemplation of law, and
not what any one chooses to think or to call a right, and therefore, if A. have a house, built within
twenty years, and B., in digging out the foundation for an adjoining house, cause injury to the
house of A., A. has no remedy for the injury so done to his house ; for, by law he had not acquired
a right as against the owner of the adjoining land to prevent him so digging out such foundation ;
though probably A. might, in such case, think it hard that his house should be injured by no act of
his own, and that therefore his right liad been inTaded, and that there ought to be some rem- edy
for him in such a case.

Essentials of Maxim

• The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium can be applied only where the right exists and that
right should be recognized by the court of law;
• A wrongful act must have been done which violates the legal rights of a person clearly.
 • This maxim can be used only when sufficient relief has not been provided by the court
to the person who sustained the injury.
• This maxim is applicable if any legal injury had been caused to any person, if no legal
injury has been caused then the maxim damnum sine injuria will be used which means
damage without any legal injury.

Limitation on applicability of Maxim

• The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium does not apply to moral and political wrong which are
not actionable.
• This maxim is not applied to those cases in which proper remedy is given in case of
breach of right under common law.
• If there is no legal damage which has been caused to any person then this maxim will
not be applicable

Case Laws

In Ashby vs White, the plaintiff was a qualified voter and he was detained from giving a vote in a
parliamentary election by the defendant who was a police officer. The party to whom he wanted
to vote had won the election and the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant stating that he was
detained from giving a vote and his right to vote was infringed and also claimed a certain amount
of compensation for the damage caused to him. The defendant in his defence said that the party to
whom he wanted to vote had won the election and therefore no damage and injury was caused to
him.

The court held that no damage or injury was caused as the candidate for whom the plaintiff wanted
to vote had won the election but his right to vote was violated. To restrain a person from giving
vote is a civil wrong and therefore the plaintiff had the right to seek remedy from the court of
law. The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium was applied in this case and the plaintiff was awarded some
amount of compensation.

In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, Mr. D.K. Basu who was working as the executive chairman
in legal aid services, West Bengal, a non-political organization registered on 26-08-1986 under the
Societies Registration Act. He wrote a letter addressing the Chief justice of India telling him about
certain news that was published in newspapers namely the Indian Express and The Telegraph
regarding the death of a person in police lockups and custody.

After hearing this case Supreme Court issued some guidelines which need to be followed during
the arrest of an accused person. The court further said that a mere declaration of violence in police
custody or judicial custody is a legal wrong and does not provide any remedy to the victim or
family of victim on the death of the victim. Only giving punishment to the victim is not sufficient.
To file a civil suit for compensation is a long process and compensation should be provided to the
person who sustained injury. The quantum of compensation should be decided considering the
circumstances of the case.

In Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, the petitioner was MLA of Jammu and Kashmir
parliamentary assembly. While he was on his way to attend the parliamentary session he was
wrongfully arrested by a police officer and he was restrained from attending the parliamentary
session. He was not presented before the magistrate in time and he had a legal right to attend the
meeting. His fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution was also violated. At last
Supreme Court held that the defendants were responsible and awarded Rs.50,000 as compensation
to the petitioner for the infringement of his fundamental right

Injuria sine damnum

Injuria Sine Damnum is a legal maxim, which means that injury or loss or damage so caused to
the plaintiff without suffering any physical injury or damage. It is a Latin term, where ‘Injuria’
refers to injury ‘Sine’ refers to without and ‘Damno’ refers to a property or any physical loss,
therefore the term refers to ‘injury suffered without actual loss’. Here, in this case, the plaintiff
doesn’t have to prove the damages so suffered, he only has to prove that there is some legal damage
suffered by him, that is the action so brought is actionable per se. Like for example, where A roams
around B’s house without any justification then, in that case, there is a violation of the legal right
of B and therefore this maxim is applicable.

Ashby vs White
Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir

Damnum sine injuria

Damnum Sine Injuria is a maxim, which refers to injury which is being suffered by the plaintiff but
there is no violation of any legal right of a person. In such circumstances, where there is no violation
of the legal right of but the injury, or damage is being suffered by the plaintiff, the plaintiff can’t bring
an action against the other for the same, as it is not actionable in law, unless there is some infringement
of a legal right is present.

Damnum Sine Injuria, the literal meaning of the word refers to loss or damage in terms of money,
property or any physical loss without the infringement of any legal right. It is not actionable in law
even if the act so did was intentional and was done to cause injury to other but without infringing on
the legal right of the person.

.Case Laws

Gloucester Grammar School Case

The defendant was the schoolmaster intentionally opened the school in front of the plaintiff’s
school, causing damage to him. As due to an increase of competition the plaintiff has to reduce
their fees from 40 pence to 12 pence per scholar per quarter. It was held that even though the
plaintiff has suffered harm but there was no infringement of any legal right, therefore, the
defendant can’t be held liable.

Mogul Steamship Co. Vs. McGregor Gow and Co.

In this case number of companies trading in steamships, combined their hands with the intention
to drove the plaintiff’s company out of the tea-carrying company, by reducing and offering
assistance at a reduced price. It was held that the plaintiff has no cause of action as no legal right
has been infringed by the other companies.
Ushaben vs. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir

In this case, the plaintiff pleaded before the court of law to issue a permanent injunction order on
the film named, “Jai Santoshi Maa”. According to her, the film hurt the religious feelings of the
plaintiff. It was observed that hurting of religious sentiments did not result in any legal injury, and
also that other then the plaintiff no other person feelings were hurt. Therefore it was held that the
defendant was not liable.