Question

Rama was a spectator at a motor car race being held on a track owned by the defendant company. During the race, there was a collision between two cars, one of the cars was thrown among the spectators, thereby injuring Rama severely. Which of the following statements is correct? (Answer the question after reading the following paragraph.)

Rama was a spectator at a motor car race being held on a track owned by the defendant company. During the race, there was a collision between two cars, one of the cars was thrown among the spectators, thereby injuring Rama severely. Which of the following statements is correct? (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: Rama impliedly took the risk of such injury, the danger being inherent in the sport which any spectator could forsee, the defendant was not liable.
Option B: It was a negligence on the part of defendant and volenti non fit injuria will be applicable.
Option C: Rama did not take the risk of such injury, and she only consented to watching the race and hence the defendant was liable.
Option D: Rama was negligence and hence she suffered injuries.

Correct Answer

Option: a

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 LIMITATION ACT, 1963 (PAPER 02 Q. NO. 41 TO 80)

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 09 Q. NO. 321 TO 360)

MADHYA PARDESH LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2019

THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 07 Q. NO. 211 TO 245)

HIMACHAL PARDESH LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2014

CHHATTISGARH LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2019

THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 (PAPER 06 Q. NO. 201 TO 240)

THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 11 Q. NO. 351 TO 385)

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949 (PAPER – 09 Q. NO. 281 TO 315)

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

THE HINDU ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956 (PAPER 02 Q. NO. 31 TO 39)

AIBE-XIV-2019 (BCI-SEPT-2019-SET-D) (ALL INDIA BAR EXAM 2019)

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949 (PAPER – 12 Q. NO. 386 TO 420)

THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 (PAPER 03 Q.NO. 81 TO 120)

AIBE-XVI-2021-II (BCI-OCT-2021-SET-A) (ALL INDIA BAR EXAM 2021-II)

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (PAPER – 12 Q. NO. 441 TO 480)

HARYANA LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2018

THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 (PAPER – 04 Q. NO. 106 TO 140)

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

HIMACHAL PARDESH LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2013

THE MAHARASHTRA RENT CONTROL ACT, 1999 (PAPER 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 15)

THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 06 Q. NO. 176 TO 210)

GUJRAT LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2019(1) & (2)

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (PAPER – 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 40)

THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 (PAPER 04 Q. NO. 121 TO 135)

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949 (PAPER – 17 Q. NO. 561 TO 595)

RAJASTHAN LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2021

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (PAPER – 05 Q. NO. 161 TO 200)

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

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 13 Q. NO. 481 TO 520)

MADHYA PARDESH LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2019-2

THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 (PAPER – 02 Q. NO. 36 TO 70)

THE JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2000 (PAPER 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 13)

THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 02 Q. NO. 36 TO 70)

THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 (PAPER 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 15)