DOCSLIB.ORG

5. DEFENCES VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA the Voluntary Assumption

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
5. DEFENCES VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA the Voluntary Assumption 5. DEFENCES VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA The voluntary assumption of risk is a complete defence to the tort of negligence. It applies where C knew of the risk and freely accepted it; although the courts tend to prefer the flexibility of CN. Basic requirements: 1. C knew of the risk: this must be actual knowledge, imposing a subjective test on C o Dann v Hamilton [1939]: C chose to travel in D’s car, knowing D was drunk. D crashed, injuring C. Volenti requires “complete knowledge of the danger” and proof of consent to it. Although knowledge of the danger can be evidence of consent to it. D must have been ‘obviously and extremely drunk’ for volenti to apply. (Although note, now, the RTA 1988). o Morris v Murray [1991]: C and D were drinking together then went in a flight in a small aeroplane, flown by D. D crashed and injured C. Fox LJ: D could rely on volenti. Knowledge can be inferred from the facts. Danger here was so great, C must have known D was incapable of discharging his duty of care, so in embarking on the flight, C “implicitly waived his rights in the event of injury.” For voleniti “the wild irresponsibility of the venture is such that the law should not intervene to award damages and should leave the loss to lie where it falls.” 2. C voluntarily agreed to incur the risk: o Narrow approach in: Nettleship v Weston [1971]: C supervised D in learning to drive. D crashed and C was injured. D could not rely on volenti. Lord Denning: “Knowledge of the risk of injury is not enough. Nor is a willingness to take the risk of injury. Nothing will suffice short of an agreement to waive any claim for negligence.” o Broader approach in subsequent case law: defence is not confined to an agreement to waive a future claim — e.g. Dann v Hamilton and Morris v Murry. ICI v Shatwell [1965]: C and X were employed in D’s quarry. They made an agreement to breach one of the safety requirements imposed by D; C was injured by X’s negligence. C sued D based on vicarious liability. HL: D could rely on volenti. Although volenti rarely succeeds in employment cases (because employee’s consent is normally based on social/economic pressure), here the parties made “ a genuine, full agreement, free from any kind of pressure, to assume the risk of loss”, even if they thought that risk to be very remote. Volenti will not apply: 1. Road traffic: Road Traffic Act 1988 s.149(3) a driver cannot argue his passenger willingly accepts the risk of his negligent driving to escape liability. No volenti defence for drivers in claims by passengers. 2. Employers: will not apply where the employer breaches his statutory duty of care 3. Rescuers: the defence does not usually apply against rescuers: Baker v TE Hopkins [1959]: C went down a well to rescue a colleague who had become trapped. C was injured and sued his employer in negligence. D claimed C had assented to the risk when he attempted to rescue X. Morris LJ: D was liable. However, “If a rescuer acts with a wanton disregard of his own safety… it might be held that any injury to him was not the result of the negligence that caused the situation of danger.” 4. Self-harm: no defence where C does the exact thing D had a duty of care to prevent him from doing: Reeves [2000]: The police could not rely on the volenti defence in respect of C’s suicide because they were under a specific duty to protect him from suicide (he was on watch). Allowing volenti would effectively negative the effect of the police’s duty of care. Volenti would have applied if the police’s duty was narrower in scope (i.e. C wasn’t on watch). EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY It is possible to expressly exclude liability by contract between the parties. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977: The general rule allowing exclusion is subject to significant exceptions from the Act, mainly s.2. o It is of vital importance that this only applies to business liability (s.1(3)), which means (i) liability arising from things gone in the course of business, (ii) occupation of a premises used for business purposes. o Where done on private premises, must be done so reasonably . s.2(1): o Cannot contract out of death or personal injury resulting from negligence . s.2(2): o For other loss or damage, the contract term/notice must satisfy the s.11 requirement of reasonableness. o Contract terms – s.11(1): . ‘The term shall have been a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made.’ o Notices – s.11(3): . ‘[The notice] should be fair and reasonable to allow reliance on it, having regard to all the circumstances obtaining when the liability arose or (but for the notice) would have arisen.’ s.2(3): o Agreement to/awareness of a contract term or notice does not itself indicate voluntary assumption of risk. In Smith v Bush, the express exclusion by the surveyors was held unreasonable. Lord Griffiths suggested four factors by which to gauge unreasonableness 1. Unequal bargaining power; 2. Whether practicable to expect C to obtain independent advice; 3. Complexity of the task; 4. Practical consequences of striking down the disclaimer. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE Contributory negligence is a partial defence and is a failure by C to take reasonable care for his own safety, which contributes to the damage complained of. It results in the apportionment of C’s damages, reduced to such an extent as the court thinks is ‘just’ and ‘equitable’, having regard to the parties’ respective share of responsibility for loss suffered. o Any fault must be causally related to the damage which C eventually suffers — i.e. a defence available when the injury sustained was within the scope of the risk created by the CN. Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 introduced a system of apportionment of damages and abolished the rule that any CN voided the claim all together. s.1 “damages recoverable in respect thereof shall be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to [C’s] share in the responsibility for the damage” s.4 CN by C does not have to satisfy the requirements of negligence. 1. Causation C’s fault in taking care of his own safety must be an operative cause of his harm Jones v Livox Quarries [1952]: C worked at a quarry owned by D. C rode on the back of a vehicle, despite being told not to. C was injured. Denning LJ: C’s negligence must be “so mixed up with his injury that it cannot be dismissed as mere history” for contributory negligence to be established, causation test. Apportionment under CN is based on causation — “ what faults were there which caused the damage? Was [C’s] fault one of them?” Stapley v Gypsum Mines [1953]: C died when a roof at a mine collapsed. He had been instructed not to work under the structure until it was removed. Lord Reid: reduced his claim against D (employer) by 50%. C’s act must be “ so much mixed up in the state of things ” that it must have contributed to the injury. “It is enough… if there is a sufficiently high degree of probabilities that the accident would have been prevented” if C had not acted as he did. In applying this test, the court should have regard to the “blame-worthiness” and the “causal potency” of C’s act. Froom v Butcher [1976]: D crashed into C’s car; C wasn’t wearing a seatbelt. Lord Denning: C’s negligence must be a part of cause of C’s damage not the accident which led to the damage. C’s damages were reduced by 20%. St George v Home Office [2008]: C was in prison; informed prison staff he suffered from withdrawal seizures; prison was negligent in managing C’s conidition and C suffered injury as a result. Dyson LJ: no reduction for CN: although C’s fault in becoming addicted were a ‘but for’ cause of his injuries, his addiction was “too remote in time, place and circumstance and was not sufficiently connected with the negligence of the prison staff… to be properly regarded as a cause of the injury ”. C’s fault was “ no more than part of the history ”. 2. Fault s.4 fault: “negligence, breach of statutory duty or other act or omission which gives rise to liability in tort or would, apart from this Act [i.e. under the old law pre-1945], give rise to the defence of contributory negligence.” .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Contributory Intent As a Defence Limiting Or Excluding Delictual Liability
    CONTRIBUTORY INTENT AS A DEFENCE LIMITING OR EXCLUDING DELICTUAL LIABILITY by RAHEEL AHMED submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF LAWS at the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA SUPERVISOR: PROF J NEETHLING NOVEMBER 2011 PREFACE This study would not have been possible without the knowledge, patience and guidance of my supervisor, Prof Johann Neethling. I am truly indebted to him and would like to express my sincerest gratitude. i SUMMARY “Contributory intent” refers to the situation where, besides the defendant being at fault and causing harm to the plaintiff, the plaintiff also intentionally causes harm to him- or herself. “Contributory intent” can have the effect of either excluding the defendant’s liability (on the ground that the plaintiff's voluntary assumption of risk or intent completely cancels the defendant's negligence and therefore liability), or limiting the defendant’s liability (where both parties intentionally cause the plaintiff's loss thereby resulting in the reduction of the defendant’s liability). Under our law the "contributory intent" of the plaintiff, can either serve as a complete defence in terms of common law or it can serve to limit the defendant's liability in terms of the Apportionment of Damages Act 34 of 1956. The “Apportionment of Loss Bill 2003” which has been prepared to replace the current Act provides for the applicability of “contributory intent” as a defence limiting liability, but it is yet to be promulgated. ii KEY TERMS Apportionment of Damages Act 34 of 1956 Apportionment
    [Show full text]
  • LAW of TORTS SUBJECT CODE: BAL 106 Name of Faculty: Dr
    FACULTY OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES COURSE: B.A.LL.B. I st Semester SUBJECT: LAW OF TORTS SUBJECT CODE: BAL 106 Name of Faculty: Dr. Aijaj Ahmed Raj LECTURE 27 TOPIC: JUSTIFICATION OF TORTS- ACT OF STATE, STATUTORY AUTHORITY, ACT OF GOD, NECESSITY, VOLENTI NON-FIT INJURIA, PRIVATE DEFENCE AND ACTS CAUSING SLIGHT HARM Volenti non fit injuria- In case, a plaintiff voluntarily suffers some harm, he has no remedy for that under the law of tort and he is not allowed to complain about the same. The reason behind this defence is that no one can enforce a right that he has voluntarily abandoned or waived. Consent to suffer harm can be express or implied. Some examples of the defence are: • When you yourself call somebody to your house you cannot sue your guests for trespass; • If you have agreed to a surgical operation then you cannot sue the surgeon for it; and • If you agree to the publication of something you were aware of, then you cannot sue him for defamation. • A player in the games is deemed to be ready to suffer any harm in the course of the game. • A spectator in the game of cricket will not be allowed to claim compensation for any damages suffered. For the defence to be available the act should not go beyond the limit of what has been consented. In Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club, the plaintiff was a spectator of a car racing event and the track on which the race was going on belonged to the defendant.
    [Show full text]
  • Negligence and the Rule of Damages in Actions Therefor
    THE AMERICAN LAW REGISTER. MAY 1875. NEGLIGENCE AND THE RULE OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS THEREFOR. ACTIONABLE negligence is an unintentional violation of the duty which enjoins care and caution in what we do, from which a. legal injury proximately results: Shearman & Redfield on Negligence, § 2, p. 1, note. It is a violation of the duty enjoining care and caution. Unless such duty exists between particular persons, there can be no negli- gence in the legal sense of the term: Tonawanda B. B. Co. v. Munger, 5 Den. 255, 267; Philadelphia & Beading B. B. Co. v. sspearen, 47 Penn. St. 300, 302. Leaving a pit uncovered, may be negligence, if an animal having a right to be on the premises falls into it and be injured, but not if the animal was not there lawfully: Sh. & Redf., § 454. This duty may arise either from contract, or it may be imposed by law without any express contract between the parties: Sh. & Redf., § 4. What then is this duty? It may be described in very general terms only, as it necessarily varies according to circumstances. "Sic utere tuo ut alienum non icedas" is the general principle (Fishv. Dodge, 4 Den. 311, 316; Cleveland & Columbus B. B. Co. v. .Tfeary, 3 Ohio St. 201; Morgan v. Cox, 22 Mo. 373, 375); in explaining which, the law proceeds on the presumption, that men ordinarily do their duty, and hence, it is the duty of every man to conduct himself and manage his property with ordinary care and diligence: Shrews- VOL. XXIII.-34 (265) NEGLIGENCE AND THE RULE OF DAMAGES bury v.
    [Show full text]
  • The Place of Assumption of Risk in the Law of Negligence, 22 La
    Louisiana Law Review Volume 22 | Number 1 Symposium: Assumption of Risk Symposium: Insurance Law December 1961 The lP ace of Assumption of Risk in the Law of Negligence John W. Wade Repository Citation John W. Wade, The Place of Assumption of Risk in the Law of Negligence, 22 La. L. Rev. (1961) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol22/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Place of Assumption of Risk in the Law of Negligence John W. Wade* The "doctrine" of assumption of risk is a controversial one, and there is considerable disagreement as to the part which it should play in a negligence case.' On the one hand it has a be- guiling simplicity about it, offering the opportunity of easily disposing of certain cases on a single issue without the need of giving consideration to other, more difficult, issues. On the other hand it overlaps and duplicates certain other doctrines, and its simplicity proves to be misleading because of its failure to point out the policy problems which may be more adequately presented by the other doctrines. Courts disagree as to the scope of the doctrine, some of them confining it to the situation where there is a contractual relation between the parties,2 and others expanding it to any situation in which an action might be brought for negligence.3 Text- writers and commentators commonly criticize the wide applica- tion of the doctrine, and not infrequently suggest that the doc- trine is entirely tautological.
    [Show full text]
  • Assignment on Volenti Non Fit Injuria
    Assignment On Volenti Non Fit Injuria Stanford tare his feat forejudging serenely or prompt after Abraham requite and examined fancifully, sombrelypassable andwhen peculiar. trunnioned Onside Nikolai Bentley absorbs invigilates regionally thriftily. and Dudleyeverywhere. usually pip whithersoever or corrade Download Assignment On Volenti Non Fit Injuria pdf. Download Assignment On Volenti Non Fit Injuria negligencedoc. Face due context, to the through purported a number assignment of contract on non injuriaAnalyze can the be complaint applied it alleges is that plaintiffassignment gives non his fitown oninjuria. volenti Adding non fitaffirmative injuria is defenceauthorized as undervalid assignment the context, non thereby fit injuria causing which damage any fraud. to support Roof tiles any andlaw it discussreflect the two normal of action inconveniences against the act of crime.done with Aggressive the danger revenue in private recognition, rights. Serious in volenti injury non or fit carrying injuria will on involenti the plaintiff non fit andinjuria cannot which be was liable negligent. as it is aScenario subterfuge and to a thevalid match assignment and this volenti information. fit injuria Encroached applicable purportedupon the purported assignment assignment on volenti on non volenti fit injuria non whichfit injuria is empty. which hePopular may not.among Travelled the purported through the nonassignment injuria because on non fithe injuria has been that hegenerally should speaking,be proved indore that the institute safety ofof suchdefendants. cases, thatCrowd pleading and volenti the voidclaimant and maythe law also of have volenti a road.when Torrential this situation. rainfall Continue was the to purported defendant assignment alleges assignment on non injuria on fit willinjuria be thisthat.
    [Show full text]
  • Assumed Risk Joe Greenhill
    SMU Law Review Volume 20 | Issue 1 Article 2 1966 Assumed Risk Joe Greenhill Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Joe Greenhill, Assumed Risk, 20 Sw L.J. 1 (1966) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol20/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. ASSUMED RISK* by Joe Greenhill** I. WHAT IS IT? T HE doctrine of assumed risk, as it has come to be understood in most jurisdictions, embodies two separate concepts.' First, assumed risk is thought of as negativing the duty owed by the defend- ant to the plaintiff, particularly the duty of an owner-occupier to persons coming upon his premises. In Texas this concept is referred to as no duty. At early common law, a landowner owed very little duty to persons coming on his land. He was required to warn of hidden dangers so that the invitee could stay off the premises or take precautions to protect himself. As will be hereinafter discussed, when the landowner had taken this step, he had discharged his duty, and the invitee proceeded at his own risk. Being under no fur- ther duty to the plaintiff, the landowner was not liable to the plain- tiff for injuries which occurred. Used in this sense, assumption of risk is but the negative of duty. When the landowner owed the invitee no duty, or had discharged whatever duty he had, the plain- tiff could not recover even though he was found to have acted reasonably in encountering the risk.' Sometimes the no duty concept is referred to as a defense.
    [Show full text]
  • "I Expected Common Sense to Prevail": Vowles V. Evans, Amateur Rugby, and Referee Liability in the U.K. Erin Mcmurray
    Brooklyn Journal of International Law Volume 29 Issue 3 SYMPOSIUM: Article 11 Creating and Interpreting Law in a Multilingual Environmnent 2004 "I Expected Common Sense to Prevail": Vowles v. Evans, Amateur Rugby, and Referee Liability in the U.K. Erin McMurray Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil Recommended Citation Erin McMurray, "I Expected Common Sense to Prevail": Vowles v. Evans, Amateur Rugby, and Referee Liability in the U.K., 29 Brook. J. Int'l L. (2004). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil/vol29/iss3/11 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brooklyn Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. File: ErinMacroFinal.DOC Created on: 6/28/2004 6:54 PM Last Printed: 6/30/2004 7:26 PM “I EXPECTED COMMON SENSE TO PREVAIL”1: VOWLES V. EVANS, AMATEUR RUGBY, AND REFEREE NEGLIGENCE IN THE U.K. I. INTRODUCTION n a boggy field in 1998, Welsh Rugby Union referee O David Evans made a fateful decision to allow amateur rugby players to proceed with a risky maneuver known as an uncontested scrum.2 The “long, but hard-fought” match be- tween Tondu and Llanharan teams saw several collapsed scrums which left players piled on top of one another.3 Llanha- ran was up by three points and replaced one of their experi- enced players in the front row of the scrum with an inexperi- enced player, thus violating official rugby rules. Evans did not object to an inexperienced Tondu player’s inclusion in the risky maneuver4 and the Llanharan coaches perceived no danger to 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Claim No. CV 2013-02152 BETWEEN SH
    THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (SUB-REGISTRY, SAN FERNANDO) Claim No. CV 2013-02152 BETWEEN SHELDON NECKLES Claimant And MONICA FORRESTER otherwise MONICA JOSEPHINE FORRESTER (The Legal Personal Representative of the Estate of MERVYN PETER FORRESTER otherwise MERVYN P FORRESTER Deceased) 1st Defendant MERVYN PETER FORRESTER 2nd Defendant THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY (TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO) LIMITED 3rd Defendant Claim No. CV 2013-02296 BETWEEN KATHY ZANIFAR ALI Claimant And MONICA FORRESTER otherwise MONICA JOSEPHINE FORRESTER Page 1 of 26 (The Legal Personal Representative of the Estate of MERVYN PETER FORRESTER otherwise MERVYN P FORRESTER Deceased) 1st Defendant MERVYN PETER FORRESTER 2nd Defendant THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY (TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO) LIMITED Co- Defendant BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. DES VIGNES Appearances in CV 2013-02152 and CV 2013-02296: Mr. Earle Martin James for the Claimant Mr. Everard Davidson for the First Defendant Mr. Vijai Deonarine instructed by Mr. Sham Sahadeo for the Co-Defendant JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION The Claimants 1. The Claimant in CV 2013-02152 (hereinafter referred to as “Neckles”) and the Claimant in CV 2013-02296 (hereinafter referred to as “Ali”), instituted proceedings against the Second Defendant and the Co-Defendant on 17th May, 2013 and 23rd May, 2013 respectively, claiming damages for personal injuries, loss and damage sustained as a result of the negligent driving by the Second Defendant of motor vehicle PCR 1576 on 30th May 2011. 2. Neckles and Ali allege that: i. On 30th May, 2011 they were passengers in motor vehicle PCR 1576, which was being driven by the Second Defendant and which was insured by the Co-Defendant; ii.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Volenti Nonfit Injuria' with Relevant Cases. 12) Examine the Composition and Jurisdiction of the District Forum Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
    VVM's G.R. KARE COLLEGE OF LAW, MARGAO-GOA B.A.LL.B. SEMESTER -II EXAMINATION, OCTOBER 2016 LAW OF TORTS Duration : 3 hours Total Marks =75 Instructions: (i) Answer ANY EIGHT Questions from Q. No. 1 to 12 (ii) Question Nos. 13 and 14 are compulsory (8X8 =64) 1) Define tort. Distinguish tort from crime and breach of contract. 2) What is meant by trespass to goods? How is it committed? 3) Examine the liability of a corporation and a minor in tort 4) Explain contributory negligence with relevant cases. 5) . Examine the of various theories of remoteness of damage with relevant cases 6) Define tort of defamation. Examine the defences available under defamation. 7) Examine th~ liability of an occupier of premises towards lawful visitors. 8) Discuss in d~tail the essentials of the tort of assault and battery. 9) Discuss the extent of liability of the master for the acts of independent contractor. 10) Discuss the rule of strict liability and distinguish it from absolute liability. 11) Examine the maxim 'volenti nonfit injuria' with relevant cases. 12) Examine the composition and jurisdiction of the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 13) Write short notes on ANY TWO : (2 X 3 =6) a. Nervous shock b. Malicious falsehood c. Nuisance 14) Write short notes on ANY TWO: (2X 2.5 =5) a. Deceit b. Consumer c. Passing off **** VVM's G.R. KARE COLLEGE OF LAW, MARGAO-GOA B.A.LL.B. SEMESTER -II EXAMINATION APRIL 2016 LAW OF TORTS Duration: 3 hours Total Marks =75 Instructions : (i) Answer ANY EIGHT Questions from Q.
    [Show full text]
  • The Automobile Guest and the Rationale of Assumption of Risk Ralph S
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1943 The Automobile Guest and the Rationale of Assumption of Risk Ralph S. Rice Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Rice, Ralph S., "The Automobile Guest and the Rationale of Assumption of Risk" (1943). Minnesota Law Review. 2130. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/2130 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW Journal of the State Bar Association VOLUME 27 MARCH, 1943 No. 4 THE AUTOMOBILE GUEST AND THE RATIONALE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK By RALPH S. RICE* Increasing complexity of economic and social problems dur- ing the past forty years has done much to revolutionize previously accepted legal concepts, particularly in the field of torts. Through techniques involving the concept of "contributory negligence as a matter of law" courts have often staked out the boundary lines of legal fault within which a jury might determine whether the conduct of litigating parties had met the standard of care required of a reasonably prudent individual confronted with similar cir- cumstances. It long since has been accepted that, particularly in tort cases, legal techniques arising from accepted precedents are often applied by courts in reaching conclusions ultimately predi- cated on the attitude of the judicial body toward social, economic and equitable considerations implicit in the facts in the controversy at hand.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Volenti Non – Fit Injuria?
    ISSN 2455-4782 WHAT IS VOLENTI NON – FIT INJURIA? Written by: Tanvi Menon 2nd Year BA-LLB Student , Auro University , Surat Volenti Non Fit Injuria means when a person has voluntarily agreed to under take risk for any activity or some act that they have volunteered for. When applied it is an absolute defence from liability . This defence makes it a requirement for the claimant to have agreed out of free consent , there should be an agreement between the two parties regarding the same. The Agreement made can be either expressed and implied. The claimant should also be made aware of the risks and its full knowledge and its extent. To make a very simple translation of the Roman Law maxim Volenti Non Fit Injuria, it means that things suffered voluntarily are not fit/deemed to be an injury; or an injury cannot arise out of a voluntary act (of the aggrieved party). Volenti non fit iniuria is an often-quoted form of the legal maxim formulated by the Roman jurist Ulpian which reads in original: Nulla iniuria est, quæ in volentem fiat. The maxim states a principle of estoppels applicable originally to a Roman citizen who consented to being sold as a slave. Although pleaded and argued below, it was only faintly relied on by counsel for the first defendant in this court. In my view, the maxim, in the absence of express contract, has no application to negligence where the duty of care is based solely on proximity or ‘neighbour ship’ in the Atkinian sense. The maxim in English law presupposes a tortuous act by the defendant.
    [Show full text]
  • Assumption of Products Risks Robert E
    SMU Law Review Volume 19 | Issue 1 Article 5 1965 Assumption of Products Risks Robert E. Keeton Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Robert E. Keeton, Assumption of Products Risks, 19 Sw L.J. 61 (1965) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol19/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. ASSUMPTION OF PRODUCTS RISKS* by Robert E. Keeton** I. INTRODUCTION A LIVELY debate has been in progress in recent years as to whether any distinct doctrine of assumption of risk exists. This debate occupied a full morning at the annual meeting of the Ameri- can Law Institute in May, 1963, and of course it has not been termi- nated by the Institute's resolutions granting some measure of recog- nition to the doctrine.1 In these circumstances, one who proposes to write about assumption of risk, in products liability cases or any other area of tort law, faces the burden of proving that his subject is not illusory. Perhaps one can meet that burden with greater ease, however, after-rather than before-examining concrete illustra- tions of what some of us choose to call applications of assumption of risk, either under that name or under the alias, volenti non fit injuria., This Article focuses on such illustrations in products liability cases; the principles considered, however, seem equally applicable to other areas of tort law.
    [Show full text]