All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >  Directions: Read the following passage and an... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
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. Jeevan is scheduled for an ear operation to treat an infection. However, the doctor neglects to inform him about the potential risk of losing his hearing during the procedure, believing that there is no such risk. Unfortunately, Jeevan does lose his hearing ability as a result of the operation. Will the doctor be held liable?
  • a)
    The doctor will not be held liable as it is assumed that all surgeries carry some degree of risk, including the risk of death.
  • b)
    The doctor will be held liable because it is his responsibility to inform the patient about all the potential risks associated with the operation.
  • c)
    The doctor will be held liable because the patient places significant trust in the doctor's expertise and guidance.
  • d)
    None of the above.
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.In the ...
The doctor could be held responsible because it is considered his obligation to disclose all potential risks associated with the operation to the patient. In this case, since Jeevan was not aware of the extent of the risk involved in the procedure, the defense of "volenti non fit injuria" cannot be invoked. As per the information provided in the passage, the doctor bears the responsibility of demonstrating that the patient possessed complete awareness of the procedure's risks and willingly accepted those risks.
Attention CLAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

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?

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.Diya, who has a heart condition, consults with Akash, a surgeon, and is informed that she requires surgery, to which she gives her consent. However, during the surgery, Akash removes one of Diyas kidneys without her knowledge. How should this situation be resolved?

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.What is required for the application of the volenti non-fit injuria defense?

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.Can Disha seek compensation after sustaining injuries in an accident while riding on Priyas scooty, which had non-functional brakes, even though Disha was aware of the brake issue and willingly agreed to the ride?

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The Kerala High Court on Thursday observed that a woman in a semi-conscious state cannot give consent for sex. Justice A Badharudeen, therefore, rejected a plea for anticipatory bail by a man accused of rape. The Court was dealing with a case involving allegations that a woman belonging to Scheduled Caste community, was raped after she was given cake and a bottle of water containing a noxious liquid, which rendered her semi-conscious. The application of relevant sections of the IPC that define consent in the context of rape reveals that seemingly victim-friendly definitions of rape have proven insufficient in the Indian socio-cultural context. Section 90 of the Code defines consent broadly and negatively, whereas Section 375 defines it specifically for the offense of rape. In cases of rape, both sections must be read together, with the latter specific provision superseding the former according to established statutory interpretation rules. Section 90 states that “Consent is not consent in the sense intended by any section of this Code if it is given by a person under fear of injury or under a misconception of fact, and the person doing the act knows or has reason to believe, that the consent was given as a result of such fear or misunderstanding.” Explanation 2 of Section 375 states that, “Consent means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the woman communicates her willingness to participate in the specific sexual act via words, gestures, or any other form of verbal or nonverbal communication.Q.Attending a party, the woman drank wine and afterwards lost consciousness. She was raped by a man at the party who took advantage of her vulnerability. What is the situations legal standing in light of the interpretation of the pertinent legal provisions?

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

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.Jeevan is scheduled for an ear operation to treat an infection. However, the doctor neglects to inform him about the potential risk of losing his hearing during the procedure, believing that there is no such risk. Unfortunately, Jeevan does lose his hearing ability as a result of the operation. Will the doctor be held liable?a)The doctor will not be held liable as it is assumed that all surgeries carry some degree of risk, including the risk of death.b)The doctor will be held liable because it is his responsibility to inform the patient about all the potential risks associated with the operation.c)The doctor will be held liable because the patient places significant trust in the doctors expertise and guidance.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
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.Jeevan is scheduled for an ear operation to treat an infection. However, the doctor neglects to inform him about the potential risk of losing his hearing during the procedure, believing that there is no such risk. Unfortunately, Jeevan does lose his hearing ability as a result of the operation. Will the doctor be held liable?a)The doctor will not be held liable as it is assumed that all surgeries carry some degree of risk, including the risk of death.b)The doctor will be held liable because it is his responsibility to inform the patient about all the potential risks associated with the operation.c)The doctor will be held liable because the patient places significant trust in the doctors expertise and guidance.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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.Jeevan is scheduled for an ear operation to treat an infection. However, the doctor neglects to inform him about the potential risk of losing his hearing during the procedure, believing that there is no such risk. Unfortunately, Jeevan does lose his hearing ability as a result of the operation. Will the doctor be held liable?a)The doctor will not be held liable as it is assumed that all surgeries carry some degree of risk, including the risk of death.b)The doctor will be held liable because it is his responsibility to inform the patient about all the potential risks associated with the operation.c)The doctor will be held liable because the patient places significant trust in the doctors expertise and guidance.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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.Jeevan is scheduled for an ear operation to treat an infection. However, the doctor neglects to inform him about the potential risk of losing his hearing during the procedure, believing that there is no such risk. Unfortunately, Jeevan does lose his hearing ability as a result of the operation. Will the doctor be held liable?a)The doctor will not be held liable as it is assumed that all surgeries carry some degree of risk, including the risk of death.b)The doctor will be held liable because it is his responsibility to inform the patient about all the potential risks associated with the operation.c)The doctor will be held liable because the patient places significant trust in the doctors expertise and guidance.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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.Jeevan is scheduled for an ear operation to treat an infection. However, the doctor neglects to inform him about the potential risk of losing his hearing during the procedure, believing that there is no such risk. Unfortunately, Jeevan does lose his hearing ability as a result of the operation. Will the doctor be held liable?a)The doctor will not be held liable as it is assumed that all surgeries carry some degree of risk, including the risk of death.b)The doctor will be held liable because it is his responsibility to inform the patient about all the potential risks associated with the operation.c)The doctor will be held liable because the patient places significant trust in the doctors expertise and guidance.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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.Jeevan is scheduled for an ear operation to treat an infection. However, the doctor neglects to inform him about the potential risk of losing his hearing during the procedure, believing that there is no such risk. Unfortunately, Jeevan does lose his hearing ability as a result of the operation. Will the doctor be held liable?a)The doctor will not be held liable as it is assumed that all surgeries carry some degree of risk, including the risk of death.b)The doctor will be held liable because it is his responsibility to inform the patient about all the potential risks associated with the operation.c)The doctor will be held liable because the patient places significant trust in the doctors expertise and guidance.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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.Jeevan is scheduled for an ear operation to treat an infection. However, the doctor neglects to inform him about the potential risk of losing his hearing during the procedure, believing that there is no such risk. Unfortunately, Jeevan does lose his hearing ability as a result of the operation. Will the doctor be held liable?a)The doctor will not be held liable as it is assumed that all surgeries carry some degree of risk, including the risk of death.b)The doctor will be held liable because it is his responsibility to inform the patient about all the potential risks associated with the operation.c)The doctor will be held liable because the patient places significant trust in the doctors expertise and guidance.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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.Jeevan is scheduled for an ear operation to treat an infection. However, the doctor neglects to inform him about the potential risk of losing his hearing during the procedure, believing that there is no such risk. Unfortunately, Jeevan does lose his hearing ability as a result of the operation. Will the doctor be held liable?a)The doctor will not be held liable as it is assumed that all surgeries carry some degree of risk, including the risk of death.b)The doctor will be held liable because it is his responsibility to inform the patient about all the potential risks associated with the operation.c)The doctor will be held liable because the patient places significant trust in the doctors expertise and guidance.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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.Jeevan is scheduled for an ear operation to treat an infection. However, the doctor neglects to inform him about the potential risk of losing his hearing during the procedure, believing that there is no such risk. Unfortunately, Jeevan does lose his hearing ability as a result of the operation. Will the doctor be held liable?a)The doctor will not be held liable as it is assumed that all surgeries carry some degree of risk, including the risk of death.b)The doctor will be held liable because it is his responsibility to inform the patient about all the potential risks associated with the operation.c)The doctor will be held liable because the patient places significant trust in the doctors expertise and guidance.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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.Jeevan is scheduled for an ear operation to treat an infection. However, the doctor neglects to inform him about the potential risk of losing his hearing during the procedure, believing that there is no such risk. Unfortunately, Jeevan does lose his hearing ability as a result of the operation. Will the doctor be held liable?a)The doctor will not be held liable as it is assumed that all surgeries carry some degree of risk, including the risk of death.b)The doctor will be held liable because it is his responsibility to inform the patient about all the potential risks associated with the operation.c)The doctor will be held liable because the patient places significant trust in the doctors expertise and guidance.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup