Question

Mr. A was the owner of a car and he had a driver- Mr. D. On January 19, 2021, Mr. A and Mr. D were travelling in their car wherein Mr. A got down at a restaurant and told Mr. D to take the car back to Mr. A’s bungalow. Mr. D was filling the petrol tank of the car, and two strangers- Mr. B and Mr. C took a lift from Mr. D in his car. The car went ahead and the right-side front wheel of the car flew away, the car toppled and Mr. D and Mr. C were thrown out. Mr. C sustained severe injuries and ultimately died due to those injuries on January 20, 2021. Mr. B and legal representatives of Mr. C claimed compensation from Mr. A and Mr. D. (Answer the question after reading the following paragraph.)

Mr. A was the owner of a car and he had a driver- Mr. D. On January 19, 2021, Mr. A and Mr. D were travelling in their car wherein Mr. A got down at a restaurant and told Mr. D to take the car back to Mr. A’s bungalow. Mr. D was filling the petrol tank of the car, and two strangers- Mr. B and Mr. C took a lift from Mr. D in his car. The car went ahead and the right-side front wheel of the car flew away, the car toppled and Mr. D and Mr. C were thrown out. Mr. C sustained severe injuries and ultimately died due to those injuries on January 20, 2021. Mr. B and legal representatives of Mr. C claimed compensation from Mr. A and Mr. D. (Answer the question after reading the following paragraph.)

Harm suffered voluntarily does not constitute a legal injury and is not actionable. This principle is embodied in the maxim volenti non fit injuria. A person cannot complain of harm to the chances of which he has exposed himself with his free consent and f reewill. The maxim volenti non fit injuria is founded on good sense and justice. A person who has invited or assented to an act being done towards him cannot, when he suffers from it, complain of it as a wrong. The maxim presupposes a tortious act by the defendant. The maxim applies, in the first place, to intentional acts which would otherwise be tortious. There are certain limitations to the application of this maxim:
(i) It is no answer to a claim made by a workman against his employer for injury caused through a breach by the employer of a duty imposed upon him by a statute. But where the negligence or breach of statutory duty is on the part of an employee of the plaintiff who knowingly accepts the risk flowing from such breach and the employer-defendant is not guilty of negligence or breach of statutory duty, the defence of volenti non fit injuria is available to the defendant.
(ii) Under an exigency caused by the defendant’s wrongful misconduct, consciously and deliberately faced a risk, even of death, whether the person endangered is one to whom he owes a duty of protection, as a member of his family, or is a mere stranger to whom he owes no such special duty. The rescuer will not be deprived of his remedy merely because the risk which he
runs is not the same as that run by the person whom he rescues. But where there is no need to take any risk, the person suffering harm in doing so cannot recover.
(iii) To cover a case of negligence the defence on the basis of the maxim must be based on implied agreement whether amounting to contract or not. The defence is available only when the plaintiff freely and voluntarily, with full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk impliedly agreed to incur it and to waive any claim for injury. But when the plaintiff has no choice or when the notice is given at a stage when it is beyond the ability of the plaintiff to make a choice there can be no implied agreement and the defence on the basis of the maxim must fail.
(iv) The maxim will also not apply when the act relied upon is done because of the psychological condition which the defendant’s breach of duty had induced.

Option A: Mr. D will be liable to pay compensation.
Option B: Volenti non fit injuria will be applicable and no compensation can be claimed.
Option C: Volenti non fir injuria will not be applicable and compensation can be claimed.
Option D: Mr. A and Mr. D both will be liable to pay the compensation.

Correct Answer

Option: b

Explanation

Volenti Non Fit Injuria maxim is applicable in here. According to Chapter IV Section 87 of IPC, Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, done by consent.

Sample Mock Tests for Practice

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (PAPER – 10 Q. NO. 361 TO 400)

THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 (PAPER 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 40)

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 02 Q. NO. 41 TO 80)

THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 35)

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (PAPER – 09 Q. NO. 321 TO 360)

DELHI LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2019

THE ADVOCATES ACT, 1961 (PAPER 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 10)

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949 (PAPER – 11 Q. NO. 351 TO 385)

HIMACHAL PARDESH LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2011

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 18 Q. NO. 681 TO 720)

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 15 Q. NO. 561 TO 600)

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Paper 02: Q. 26 TO 50)

RAJASTHAN LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2011

THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 (PAPER 02 Q. NO. 41 TO 80)

THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 09 Q. NO. 281 TO 315)

THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 (PAPER 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 40)

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (PAPER – 16 Q. NO. 601 TO 640)

MADHYA PARDESH LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2001

AILET – National Law University Delhi Entrance Test (NLU 2019)

THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 (PAPER 03 Q. NO. 81 TO 120)

DELHI LOWER JUDICIARY 2010

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 01 Q. NO. 01 TO 40)

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949 (PAPER – 10 Q. NO. 316 TO 350)

THE MADHYA PRADESH ACCOMODATION CONTROL ACT, 1961 (PAPER 02 Q. NO. 31 TO 49)

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (PAPER – 07 Q. NO. 241 TO 280)

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (PAPER – 12 Q. NO. 441 TO 480)

DELHI LOWER JUDICIARY 2008

THE LAW OF TORTS (PAPER 04 Q. NO. 136 TO 180)

THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 (PAPER 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 30)

AIBE-XIII-2018-II (BCI-DEC-2018-SET-A) (ALL INDIA BAR EXAM 2018-II)

AILET – National Law University Delhi Entrance Test (NLU 2022)

THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 (PAPER – 06 Q. NO. 176 TO 210)

DELHI LOWER JUDICIARY 2011