Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.In the law of torts, one defence available to a defendant is the defence of volenti non-fit injuria in which the plaintiff is not entitled to damages because he consents to the act which has caused injury to him.In torts, there is a duty on every person to do acts with reasonable care in order to avoid any harm which may occur due to their failure of taking such care. This is general, but there are certain exceptions which are allowed in these cases called defences to tort. Under these defences, a defendant can escape liability, and volenti non-fit injuria is also one such defence which is available for the defendant.For the application of this defence, there are some essential elements or conditions which must be fulfilled to prevent liability. The plaintiff has the knowledge of the risk and that the plaintiff with this knowledge has voluntarily agreed to suffer the harm.Thus, whenever the plaintiff is aware of the possibility of harm which is likely to be caused by an act and when he still accepts to do that act and therefore agrees to suffer the injury, a defendant is relieved of his liability.But only having knowledge about the risk is not enough for the application of this defence, it is known as scienti non fit injuria, which means that mere knowledge does not mean consent to the risk. Thus, having knowledge is only a partial fulfillment of the conditions for the application of volenti non fit injuria.In the cases where the defendant is taking the defence, the burden of proof is on him to show that the plaintiff had full knowledge of the act and consented to the risk involved in the act and the defendant has to show that the plaintiff was also aware of the extent of risk which was involved in the act. For such a defence, the consent of the defendant is not required to be expressly given and even by his conduct, his consent can be taken. When a plaintiff gives his consent for an act, such consent should be free from any coercion, fraud or any other such means by which the free consent can be affected. In case the consent of a person is not free, the defendant cannot claim this defence to escape liability and he will be held liable for damage caused.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from volenti non fit injuria, blog by lawtimesjournal]Q.Ram was employed at Shams construction site, where he operated a crane that transported rocks over other workers heads. Ram had previously expressed concerns to Sham about the potential risks involved. One day, Ram sustained injuries due to falling rocks and subsequently filed a lawsuit against Sham. How should this situation be resolved?a)Sham could be held responsible because Ram had previously raised concerns about the potential danger that could lead to injury.b)Sham may not bear liability as Ram was expected to exercise caution on his own, considering the inherent risks.c)Sham might be held liable as the incident occurred within the construction sites premises.d)Sham might not be found liable as Ram continued to work despite being aware of the associated risks.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.In the law of torts, one defence available to a defendant is the defence of volenti non-fit injuria in which the plaintiff is not entitled to damages because he consents to the act which has caused injury to him.In torts, there is a duty on every person to do acts with reasonable care in order to avoid any harm which may occur due to their failure of taking such care. This is general, but there are certain exceptions which are allowed in these cases called defences to tort. Under these defences, a defendant can escape liability, and volenti non-fit injuria is also one such defence which is available for the defendant.For the application of this defence, there are some essential elements or conditions which must be fulfilled to prevent liability. The plaintiff has the knowledge of the risk and that the plaintiff with this knowledge has voluntarily agreed to suffer the harm.Thus, whenever the plaintiff is aware of the possibility of harm which is likely to be caused by an act and when he still accepts to do that act and therefore agrees to suffer the injury, a defendant is relieved of his liability.But only having knowledge about the risk is not enough for the application of this defence, it is known as scienti non fit injuria, which means that mere knowledge does not mean consent to the risk. Thus, having knowledge is only a partial fulfillment of the conditions for the application of volenti non fit injuria.In the cases where the defendant is taking the defence, the burden of proof is on him to show that the plaintiff had full knowledge of the act and consented to the risk involved in the act and the defendant has to show that the plaintiff was also aware of the extent of risk which was involved in the act. For such a defence, the consent of the defendant is not required to be expressly given and even by his conduct, his consent can be taken. When a plaintiff gives his consent for an act, such consent should be free from any coercion, fraud or any other such means by which the free consent can be affected. In case the consent of a person is not free, the defendant cannot claim this defence to escape liability and he will be held liable for damage caused.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from volenti non fit injuria, blog by lawtimesjournal]Q.Ram was employed at Shams construction site, where he operated a crane that transported rocks over other workers heads. Ram had previously expressed concerns to Sham about the potential risks involved. One day, Ram sustained injuries due to falling rocks and subsequently filed a lawsuit against Sham. How should this situation be resolved?a)Sham could be held responsible because Ram had previously raised concerns about the potential danger that could lead to injury.b)Sham may not bear liability as Ram was expected to exercise caution on his own, considering the inherent risks.c)Sham might be held liable as the incident occurred within the construction sites premises.d)Sham might not be found liable as Ram continued to work despite being aware of the associated risks.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.In the law of torts, one defence available to a defendant is the defence of volenti non-fit injuria in which the plaintiff is not entitled to damages because he consents to the act which has caused injury to him.In torts, there is a duty on every person to do acts with reasonable care in order to avoid any harm which may occur due to their failure of taking such care. This is general, but there are certain exceptions which are allowed in these cases called defences to tort. Under these defences, a defendant can escape liability, and volenti non-fit injuria is also one such defence which is available for the defendant.For the application of this defence, there are some essential elements or conditions which must be fulfilled to prevent liability. The plaintiff has the knowledge of the risk and that the plaintiff with this knowledge has voluntarily agreed to suffer the harm.Thus, whenever the plaintiff is aware of the possibility of harm which is likely to be caused by an act and when he still accepts to do that act and therefore agrees to suffer the injury, a defendant is relieved of his liability.But only having knowledge about the risk is not enough for the application of this defence, it is known as scienti non fit injuria, which means that mere knowledge does not mean consent to the risk. Thus, having knowledge is only a partial fulfillment of the conditions for the application of volenti non fit injuria.In the cases where the defendant is taking the defence, the burden of proof is on him to show that the plaintiff had full knowledge of the act and consented to the risk involved in the act and the defendant has to show that the plaintiff was also aware of the extent of risk which was involved in the act. For such a defence, the consent of the defendant is not required to be expressly given and even by his conduct, his consent can be taken. When a plaintiff gives his consent for an act, such consent should be free from any coercion, fraud or any other such means by which the free consent can be affected. In case the consent of a person is not free, the defendant cannot claim this defence to escape liability and he will be held liable for damage caused.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from volenti non fit injuria, blog by lawtimesjournal]Q.Ram was employed at Shams construction site, where he operated a crane that transported rocks over other workers heads. Ram had previously expressed concerns to Sham about the potential risks involved. One day, Ram sustained injuries due to falling rocks and subsequently filed a lawsuit against Sham. How should this situation be resolved?a)Sham could be held responsible because Ram had previously raised concerns about the potential danger that could lead to injury.b)Sham may not bear liability as Ram was expected to exercise caution on his own, considering the inherent risks.c)Sham might be held liable as the incident occurred within the construction sites premises.d)Sham might not be found liable as Ram continued to work despite being aware of the associated risks.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.In the law of torts, one defence available to a defendant is the defence of volenti non-fit injuria in which the plaintiff is not entitled to damages because he consents to the act which has caused injury to him.In torts, there is a duty on every person to do acts with reasonable care in order to avoid any harm which may occur due to their failure of taking such care. This is general, but there are certain exceptions which are allowed in these cases called defences to tort. Under these defences, a defendant can escape liability, and volenti non-fit injuria is also one such defence which is available for the defendant.For the application of this defence, there are some essential elements or conditions which must be fulfilled to prevent liability. The plaintiff has the knowledge of the risk and that the plaintiff with this knowledge has voluntarily agreed to suffer the harm.Thus, whenever the plaintiff is aware of the possibility of harm which is likely to be caused by an act and when he still accepts to do that act and therefore agrees to suffer the injury, a defendant is relieved of his liability.But only having knowledge about the risk is not enough for the application of this defence, it is known as scienti non fit injuria, which means that mere knowledge does not mean consent to the risk. Thus, having knowledge is only a partial fulfillment of the conditions for the application of volenti non fit injuria.In the cases where the defendant is taking the defence, the burden of proof is on him to show that the plaintiff had full knowledge of the act and consented to the risk involved in the act and the defendant has to show that the plaintiff was also aware of the extent of risk which was involved in the act. For such a defence, the consent of the defendant is not required to be expressly given and even by his conduct, his consent can be taken. When a plaintiff gives his consent for an act, such consent should be free from any coercion, fraud or any other such means by which the free consent can be affected. In case the consent of a person is not free, the defendant cannot claim this defence to escape liability and he will be held liable for damage caused.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from volenti non fit injuria, blog by lawtimesjournal]Q.Ram was employed at Shams construction site, where he operated a crane that transported rocks over other workers heads. Ram had previously expressed concerns to Sham about the potential risks involved. One day, Ram sustained injuries due to falling rocks and subsequently filed a lawsuit against Sham. How should this situation be resolved?a)Sham could be held responsible because Ram had previously raised concerns about the potential danger that could lead to injury.b)Sham may not bear liability as Ram was expected to exercise caution on his own, considering the inherent risks.c)Sham might be held liable as the incident occurred within the construction sites premises.d)Sham might not be found liable as Ram continued to work despite being aware of the associated risks.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.In the law of torts, one defence available to a defendant is the defence of volenti non-fit injuria in which the plaintiff is not entitled to damages because he consents to the act which has caused injury to him.In torts, there is a duty on every person to do acts with reasonable care in order to avoid any harm which may occur due to their failure of taking such care. This is general, but there are certain exceptions which are allowed in these cases called defences to tort. Under these defences, a defendant can escape liability, and volenti non-fit injuria is also one such defence which is available for the defendant.For the application of this defence, there are some essential elements or conditions which must be fulfilled to prevent liability. The plaintiff has the knowledge of the risk and that the plaintiff with this knowledge has voluntarily agreed to suffer the harm.Thus, whenever the plaintiff is aware of the possibility of harm which is likely to be caused by an act and when he still accepts to do that act and therefore agrees to suffer the injury, a defendant is relieved of his liability.But only having knowledge about the risk is not enough for the application of this defence, it is known as scienti non fit injuria, which means that mere knowledge does not mean consent to the risk. Thus, having knowledge is only a partial fulfillment of the conditions for the application of volenti non fit injuria.In the cases where the defendant is taking the defence, the burden of proof is on him to show that the plaintiff had full knowledge of the act and consented to the risk involved in the act and the defendant has to show that the plaintiff was also aware of the extent of risk which was involved in the act. For such a defence, the consent of the defendant is not required to be expressly given and even by his conduct, his consent can be taken. When a plaintiff gives his consent for an act, such consent should be free from any coercion, fraud or any other such means by which the free consent can be affected. In case the consent of a person is not free, the defendant cannot claim this defence to escape liability and he will be held liable for damage caused.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from volenti non fit injuria, blog by lawtimesjournal]Q.Ram was employed at Shams construction site, where he operated a crane that transported rocks over other workers heads. Ram had previously expressed concerns to Sham about the potential risks involved. One day, Ram sustained injuries due to falling rocks and subsequently filed a lawsuit against Sham. How should this situation be resolved?a)Sham could be held responsible because Ram had previously raised concerns about the potential danger that could lead to injury.b)Sham may not bear liability as Ram was expected to exercise caution on his own, considering the inherent risks.c)Sham might be held liable as the incident occurred within the construction sites premises.d)Sham might not be found liable as Ram continued to work despite being aware of the associated risks.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.In the law of torts, one defence available to a defendant is the defence of volenti non-fit injuria in which the plaintiff is not entitled to damages because he consents to the act which has caused injury to him.In torts, there is a duty on every person to do acts with reasonable care in order to avoid any harm which may occur due to their failure of taking such care. This is general, but there are certain exceptions which are allowed in these cases called defences to tort. Under these defences, a defendant can escape liability, and volenti non-fit injuria is also one such defence which is available for the defendant.For the application of this defence, there are some essential elements or conditions which must be fulfilled to prevent liability. The plaintiff has the knowledge of the risk and that the plaintiff with this knowledge has voluntarily agreed to suffer the harm.Thus, whenever the plaintiff is aware of the possibility of harm which is likely to be caused by an act and when he still accepts to do that act and therefore agrees to suffer the injury, a defendant is relieved of his liability.But only having knowledge about the risk is not enough for the application of this defence, it is known as scienti non fit injuria, which means that mere knowledge does not mean consent to the risk. Thus, having knowledge is only a partial fulfillment of the conditions for the application of volenti non fit injuria.In the cases where the defendant is taking the defence, the burden of proof is on him to show that the plaintiff had full knowledge of the act and consented to the risk involved in the act and the defendant has to show that the plaintiff was also aware of the extent of risk which was involved in the act. For such a defence, the consent of the defendant is not required to be expressly given and even by his conduct, his consent can be taken. When a plaintiff gives his consent for an act, such consent should be free from any coercion, fraud or any other such means by which the free consent can be affected. In case the consent of a person is not free, the defendant cannot claim this defence to escape liability and he will be held liable for damage caused.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from volenti non fit injuria, blog by lawtimesjournal]Q.Ram was employed at Shams construction site, where he operated a crane that transported rocks over other workers heads. Ram had previously expressed concerns to Sham about the potential risks involved. One day, Ram sustained injuries due to falling rocks and subsequently filed a lawsuit against Sham. How should this situation be resolved?a)Sham could be held responsible because Ram had previously raised concerns about the potential danger that could lead to injury.b)Sham may not bear liability as Ram was expected to exercise caution on his own, considering the inherent risks.c)Sham might be held liable as the incident occurred within the construction sites premises.d)Sham might not be found liable as Ram continued to work despite being aware of the associated risks.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.In the law of torts, one defence available to a defendant is the defence of volenti non-fit injuria in which the plaintiff is not entitled to damages because he consents to the act which has caused injury to him.In torts, there is a duty on every person to do acts with reasonable care in order to avoid any harm which may occur due to their failure of taking such care. This is general, but there are certain exceptions which are allowed in these cases called defences to tort. Under these defences, a defendant can escape liability, and volenti non-fit injuria is also one such defence which is available for the defendant.For the application of this defence, there are some essential elements or conditions which must be fulfilled to prevent liability. The plaintiff has the knowledge of the risk and that the plaintiff with this knowledge has voluntarily agreed to suffer the harm.Thus, whenever the plaintiff is aware of the possibility of harm which is likely to be caused by an act and when he still accepts to do that act and therefore agrees to suffer the injury, a defendant is relieved of his liability.But only having knowledge about the risk is not enough for the application of this defence, it is known as scienti non fit injuria, which means that mere knowledge does not mean consent to the risk. Thus, having knowledge is only a partial fulfillment of the conditions for the application of volenti non fit injuria.In the cases where the defendant is taking the defence, the burden of proof is on him to show that the plaintiff had full knowledge of the act and consented to the risk involved in the act and the defendant has to show that the plaintiff was also aware of the extent of risk which was involved in the act. For such a defence, the consent of the defendant is not required to be expressly given and even by his conduct, his consent can be taken. When a plaintiff gives his consent for an act, such consent should be free from any coercion, fraud or any other such means by which the free consent can be affected. In case the consent of a person is not free, the defendant cannot claim this defence to escape liability and he will be held liable for damage caused.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from volenti non fit injuria, blog by lawtimesjournal]Q.Ram was employed at Shams construction site, where he operated a crane that transported rocks over other workers heads. Ram had previously expressed concerns to Sham about the potential risks involved. One day, Ram sustained injuries due to falling rocks and subsequently filed a lawsuit against Sham. How should this situation be resolved?a)Sham could be held responsible because Ram had previously raised concerns about the potential danger that could lead to injury.b)Sham may not bear liability as Ram was expected to exercise caution on his own, considering the inherent risks.c)Sham might be held liable as the incident occurred within the construction sites premises.d)Sham might not be found liable as Ram continued to work despite being aware of the associated risks.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.In the law of torts, one defence available to a defendant is the defence of volenti non-fit injuria in which the plaintiff is not entitled to damages because he consents to the act which has caused injury to him.In torts, there is a duty on every person to do acts with reasonable care in order to avoid any harm which may occur due to their failure of taking such care. This is general, but there are certain exceptions which are allowed in these cases called defences to tort. Under these defences, a defendant can escape liability, and volenti non-fit injuria is also one such defence which is available for the defendant.For the application of this defence, there are some essential elements or conditions which must be fulfilled to prevent liability. The plaintiff has the knowledge of the risk and that the plaintiff with this knowledge has voluntarily agreed to suffer the harm.Thus, whenever the plaintiff is aware of the possibility of harm which is likely to be caused by an act and when he still accepts to do that act and therefore agrees to suffer the injury, a defendant is relieved of his liability.But only having knowledge about the risk is not enough for the application of this defence, it is known as scienti non fit injuria, which means that mere knowledge does not mean consent to the risk. Thus, having knowledge is only a partial fulfillment of the conditions for the application of volenti non fit injuria.In the cases where the defendant is taking the defence, the burden of proof is on him to show that the plaintiff had full knowledge of the act and consented to the risk involved in the act and the defendant has to show that the plaintiff was also aware of the extent of risk which was involved in the act. For such a defence, the consent of the defendant is not required to be expressly given and even by his conduct, his consent can be taken. When a plaintiff gives his consent for an act, such consent should be free from any coercion, fraud or any other such means by which the free consent can be affected. In case the consent of a person is not free, the defendant cannot claim this defence to escape liability and he will be held liable for damage caused.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from volenti non fit injuria, blog by lawtimesjournal]Q.Ram was employed at Shams construction site, where he operated a crane that transported rocks over other workers heads. Ram had previously expressed concerns to Sham about the potential risks involved. One day, Ram sustained injuries due to falling rocks and subsequently filed a lawsuit against Sham. How should this situation be resolved?a)Sham could be held responsible because Ram had previously raised concerns about the potential danger that could lead to injury.b)Sham may not bear liability as Ram was expected to exercise caution on his own, considering the inherent risks.c)Sham might be held liable as the incident occurred within the construction sites premises.d)Sham might not be found liable as Ram continued to work despite being aware of the associated risks.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.In the law of torts, one defence available to a defendant is the defence of volenti non-fit injuria in which the plaintiff is not entitled to damages because he consents to the act which has caused injury to him.In torts, there is a duty on every person to do acts with reasonable care in order to avoid any harm which may occur due to their failure of taking such care. This is general, but there are certain exceptions which are allowed in these cases called defences to tort. Under these defences, a defendant can escape liability, and volenti non-fit injuria is also one such defence which is available for the defendant.For the application of this defence, there are some essential elements or conditions which must be fulfilled to prevent liability. The plaintiff has the knowledge of the risk and that the plaintiff with this knowledge has voluntarily agreed to suffer the harm.Thus, whenever the plaintiff is aware of the possibility of harm which is likely to be caused by an act and when he still accepts to do that act and therefore agrees to suffer the injury, a defendant is relieved of his liability.But only having knowledge about the risk is not enough for the application of this defence, it is known as scienti non fit injuria, which means that mere knowledge does not mean consent to the risk. Thus, having knowledge is only a partial fulfillment of the conditions for the application of volenti non fit injuria.In the cases where the defendant is taking the defence, the burden of proof is on him to show that the plaintiff had full knowledge of the act and consented to the risk involved in the act and the defendant has to show that the plaintiff was also aware of the extent of risk which was involved in the act. For such a defence, the consent of the defendant is not required to be expressly given and even by his conduct, his consent can be taken. When a plaintiff gives his consent for an act, such consent should be free from any coercion, fraud or any other such means by which the free consent can be affected. In case the consent of a person is not free, the defendant cannot claim this defence to escape liability and he will be held liable for damage caused.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from volenti non fit injuria, blog by lawtimesjournal]Q.Ram was employed at Shams construction site, where he operated a crane that transported rocks over other workers heads. Ram had previously expressed concerns to Sham about the potential risks involved. One day, Ram sustained injuries due to falling rocks and subsequently filed a lawsuit against Sham. How should this situation be resolved?a)Sham could be held responsible because Ram had previously raised concerns about the potential danger that could lead to injury.b)Sham may not bear liability as Ram was expected to exercise caution on his own, considering the inherent risks.c)Sham might be held liable as the incident occurred within the construction sites premises.d)Sham might not be found liable as Ram continued to work despite being aware of the associated risks.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.