MyQuestionIcon

1

You visited us 1 times! Enjoying our articles? Unlock Full Access!

Third Law of Motion

Principle A p...

Question

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?

A

'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!

B

'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

C

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!

D

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 C 'R' would fail in his action, as he voluntarily exposed himself to the risk.
According to legal maxim 'volenti non fit injuria', in the given situation R would fail in his action, as he voluntarily consents to and takes on a risk (for example, by participating in a potentially dangerous sport, such as motor racing or skiing) cannot ask for compensation for the damage or injury resulting from it.

Suggest Corrections

thumbs-up

0

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 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?

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. 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.

Q. PRINCIPLE: Master is liable for the wrongful acts committed by his servant, provided the acts are committed during the course of employment. However, the master is not liable if the wrongful act committed by his servant has no connection, whatsoever, with the servant's contract of employment.

FACTS: 'D' is a driver employed by 'M', who is the owner of a company. During the lunch time 'D' goes to a close by tea shop to have a cup of tea. There he ('D') picks up fight with the tea shop owner 'T', which resulted in some damage to his shop. 'T' wants to sue 'M' for claiming compensation for the damage caused by the fight.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

View More

Join BYJU'S Learning Program

similar_icon

Related Videos

lock

Third Law of Motion

PHYSICS

Watch in App

explore_more_icon

Explore more

Third Law of Motion

Standard XII Physics

Join BYJU'S Learning Program

CrossIcon