PRINCIPLE: A person has no legal remedy for an injury caused by an act to which he has consented.

FACTS: 'R', a cricket enthusiast, purchases a ticket to watch a T20 match organised by the Indian Premier League (IPL). During the match, a ball struck for six hit 'R' on his body and injures him. He sues IPL for compensation for the medical expenses.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

R should be compensated as he purchased the ticket to get entertainment and not to get injured.

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

R would fail in his action, as he voluntarily exposed himself to the risk.

Right on! Give the BNAT exam to get a 100% scholarship for BYJUS courses

IPL would be liable as it did not ensure that the spectators were protected from the risk of such injuries.

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

None of the above.

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Open in App

Solution

The correct option is B R would fail in his action, as he voluntarily exposed himself to the risk.
The above case is based on a doctrine called Volenti non fit injuria which is a Latin phrase which denotes that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they will not be able to bring a claim against the other party in tort. 'Volenti' is also known as "voluntary assumption of risk."

Suggest Corrections

Similar questions

Q. Principle A person has no legal remedy for an injury caused by an act to which he has consented.
Facts 'R', a cricket enthusiast, purchases a tickets to watch a T

20

match organized by the Indian Premier League (IPL). During the match, a ball struck for six hits 'R' on his body and injures him. He sues IPL for compensation for the medical expenses.
Which of the following derivation is correct?

Q. Principles
1. A person is liable for negligence, if he fails to take care of his neighbour's interest.
2. A neighbor is anyone whose interests should have been forseeable by a reasonable man while carrying on his activities.
Facts
A cricket match was going on in a closed door stadium. A cricket fan who could not get into the stadium was watching the game by climbing up a nearby tree and sitting there. The cricket ball in the course of the game went out the stadium and hit this person and injured him. He filed a suit against the organizers.
Possible Decisions
(a) The organizers are liable to compensate the injured person.
(b) The organizers are not liable to compensate the injured person'
(c) The inured person should have avoided the place where he might be hit by the cricket ball. Possible Reasons
i) The organizers are responsible for the people inside the stadium.
ii) The organizers could not have foreseen somebody watching the game by climbing up a tree.
iii) A person crazy about something must pay the price for that.
iv) The organizers shall be liable to everybody likely to watch the game.
Your decision with the reason

Q. PRINCIPLE: A person is said to cause an effect "voluntarily" whereby he intended to cause it or by means which, at the time of employing those means, he knew or had reason to believe, to be likely to cause it.
FACTS: A sets fire, by night, to an inhabited house in a large town, for the purpose of facilitating a robbery and this causes death of a person. A pleaded that he had intended the robbery but not the causing of death and he is sorry for the death caused by his act. Is A liable for causing the death voluntarily?

Q. Consists of legal proposition(s)/principle(s) (herein after referred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principles may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this Section. In other words, in answering these questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles those are given herein below for every question.
Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the objective of this section to test your knowledge of law.
Therefore, to answer a question, principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option.
Principle: Under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, an employer is liable to pay compensation to his workmen for injuries sustained by them by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.
Facts: M, the Manager of SRK Industries asked his secretary S to submit a report at the Government Labour Office. 'S' submitted the report as directed. On his way back S met one of his class mates. He then decided to have a cup of tea together on a way side restaurant. Sometime later, 'S' got a message from his office to report back as it was long time since he left the office. 'S' rushed back en his Motor Cycle. On his way back a Truck which was coming from a side road hit 'S'. He was admitted in a nearby hospital with multiple injuries. He claims compensation under the Employees Compensation Act from his employer.

Q. PRINCIPLE: When a person voluntarily agrees to suffer some harm, he is not allowed to complain for that.

FACTS: 'A' was one of the spectators at a formula one car race, being held at Gurgaon, on a track owned by one 'M' company. During the race, there was a collision between two racing cars, one of which was thrown away amidst spectators, thereby causing an injury to 'A'. 'A' claims damages for the injuries caused to him.

DECIDE.

Join BYJU'S Learning Program