general defences priya

Upload: priya-arora

Post on 04-Apr-2018

221 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 7/29/2019 General Defences Priya

    1/15

  • 7/29/2019 General Defences Priya

    2/15

    Introduction

    The Consent Must Be FreeConsent Obtained By fraudConsent Obtained Under CompulsionMere Knowledge Does Not Imply Assent

    Negligence Of The DefendantLimitations On The Scope Of Doctrine:I. Rescue CasesII. Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

    (England) Difference between volenti nonfit injuria

    and contributory negligence

  • 7/29/2019 General Defences Priya

    3/15

    When a person consents to the infliction of someharm upon himself, he has no remedy for that in

    tort. In the case of volenti non fit injuria consent of the

    plaintiff serves as the good defense against him. The consent may be implied or inferred from the

    conduct of the parties. E.g.: A player is deemed to any hurt which may be

    likely in the course of game. For the defence of consent to be available, the act

    causing the harm must not go beyond what isconsented.

    If there is a deliberate injury caused by anotherplayer defence of volenti cannot be pleaded.

  • 7/29/2019 General Defences Priya

    4/15

    For the defense to be available , it is

    necessary to show that the plaintiff's consentto the act done by the defendant was free. If the consent of the plaintiff has been

    obtained by fraud or under compulsion or

    under some mistaken impression, suchconsent does not deserve good defense.The act done by the defendant must be same

    for which the consent is given.E.g.: if you invite some person to your house

    you cannot sue him for trespass, but if he isconsented to seat in the bedroom and hecomes to your bedroom ,he will be liable fortrespass .

  • 7/29/2019 General Defences Priya

    5/15

    Consent obtained by fraud is not real that

    does not serve as a good defense.

    If the plaintiff knows the nature of the actdone and then the consent is given, then

    the defendant is not liable for the

    consequences of the act.

  • 7/29/2019 General Defences Priya

    6/15

    Consent obtained under such circumstanceswhen the person does not have the freedomof choice is not a proper consent.

    If a person gives his consent in the state of

    compulsion, it does not imply that he hasagreed to suffer the consequences of therisky job he has undertaken.

    There is no volenti fit injuria, when the person

    is compelled do some work inspite of hisprotests.

  • 7/29/2019 General Defences Priya

    7/15

    For the maxim volenti non fit injuria to apply

    two points have to be proved:a) The plaintiff knew the risk is thereb) He, knowing the same, agreed to suffer the

    harm

    If only first of these points is present, it isknowledge of the risk, it is no defense. Merelybecause the plaintiff knows of the harm thatdoes not imply that he assents to suffer it

  • 7/29/2019 General Defences Priya

    8/15

    For the defense to be available, it is further necessary

    that the act done must be the same to which theconsent has been given.E.g.: A player is deemed to the injuries in the course of

    game, but if he is deliberately or negligently hit byanother player, that player is liable for his injury and hecannot plead volenti non fit injuria

    When the plaintiff consents to take some risk it ispresumed that the defendant will not be negligent

    E.g.: if a person submits to the risk of a surgery hecannot held the surgeon liable if the surgery is

    unsuccessful, but if the surgeon was negligent then hecan be held liable

  • 7/29/2019 General Defences Priya

    9/15

    The scope of the doctrine of volenti non fit

    injuria has been curtailed:I. Rescue Cases.II. Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

    (England)

    In spite of the fact that the plaintiff hasconsented to suffer the harm, he may bestill entitled to his actions against thedefendant in these exceptional situations.

  • 7/29/2019 General Defences Priya

    10/15

    Rescue Cases form an exception to the

    application of the doctrine of volenti non fit

    injuria.

    When the plaintiff voluntarily encounters a

    risk to rescue somebody ferom animminent danger created by the wrongfull

    act of the defendant, he cannot met with

    the defense of non volenti injuria

  • 7/29/2019 General Defences Priya

    11/15

    Unfair Contract Terms Act, 1977 limits theright of a person to restrict or exclude his

    liability resulting from his negligence by a

    contract term, or by notice.

    Section 2 of the act contains followingprovisions:

  • 7/29/2019 General Defences Priya

    12/15

    1) A person cannot by reference to anycontract term or to a notice given to a

    person generally or to a particular personsexclude or restrict his liability for death orpersonal injury resulting from negligence.

    2) In the case of other loss or damage, aperson cannot so exclude or restrict hisliability for negligence except in so far as theterm or notice satisfies the requirement ofreasonableness.

    3) When a contract term or notice purports to

    exclude or restrict liability for negligence, apersons agreement to or awareness of it isnot to be taken as indicating his voluntaryacceptance of any risk.

  • 7/29/2019 General Defences Priya

    13/15

    1) Puts an absolute ban on persons right to exclude his liability for death orrpersonal injury resulting from negligence, by making contract or givingnotice to that effect. It means that even if the defendant has procuredplaintiffs consent to suffer death or personal injury resulting from plaintiffsnegligence, plaintiffs liability is not negatived thereby.

    2) Deals with an injury where the damage caused to plaintiff is other than

    death and injury. In such a case exclusion of liability by a contract term ornotice is possible only if the term of notice satisfies the requirement ofreasonableness.

    3) Further provides that even in those cases where the defendant couldexclude or restrict his liability by a contract term or notice, the plaintiffsagreement or awareness about such agreement or notice, is not of itselfto be taken as indicating his voluntary acceptance of any risk. It meansthat not merely an agreement or notice may be enough to restrict thedefendants liability, something more, for instance further evidence aboutthe genuineness of the plaintiffs consent, and voluntary assumptions ofthe risks must also be proved.

  • 7/29/2019 General Defences Priya

    14/15

    Volenti non fit injuria is a complete defence

    whereas in the case of contributory

    negligence, the defendants liability is based

    on the proportion of his fault in the matter In the defence of contributory negligence,

    both the plaintiff and defendant are

    negligent.in volenti fit injuria,the plaintiff maybe volens but at the same time excercising

    due care for his own safety.

  • 7/29/2019 General Defences Priya

    15/15