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
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
The correct option is C (b)(ii)
- In the present case, the organizers won't be liable to compensate the injured person because the organizers could not have foreseen somebody watching the game by climbing up a tree.
- Here the defence made by the defendant that he is not guilty under the maxim volenti non fit injuria which means to a willing person, injury is not done. This defence absolves the defendant from all liability to which the plaintiff has consented in full knowledge of the risk involved presuming that the defendant will not be negligent. Burden of proof is on the defendant. Restriction on this defence is that the plaintiff must be capable of giving consent and it must be given voluntarily. If this defence would not have been available with the defendant then he would have been liable for those injuries also which were known to the plaintiff and were not caused because his negligence. Also, in the case of Halls vs. Brooklands Auto Racing Club, which was the case of volunti non fir injuria, the court held that If a person consents to harm committed on him, that person cannot be permitted to sue the other for the tort. Consent to such harm can be either implied or expressed. In the case of express consent, the consent is open and either verbal or contractual. In the case of Volenti Non-Fit Injuria, the plaintiff’s consent serves as a defense against him.
- In the present case, the organizers won't be liable to compensate the injured person because the organizers could not have foreseen somebody watching the game by climbing up a tree.
- Here the defence made by the defendant that he is not guilty under the maxim volenti non fit injuria which means to a willing person, injury is not done. This defence absolves the defendant from all liability to which the plaintiff has consented in full knowledge of the risk involved presuming that the defendant will not be negligent. Burden of proof is on the defendant. Restriction on this defence is that the plaintiff must be capable of giving consent and it must be given voluntarily. If this defence would not have been available with the defendant then he would have been liable for those injuries also which were known to the plaintiff and were not caused because his negligence. Also, in the case of Halls vs. Brooklands Auto Racing Club, which was the case of volunti non fir injuria, the court held that If a person consents to harm committed on him, that person cannot be permitted to sue the other for the tort. Consent to such harm can be either implied or expressed. In the case of express consent, the consent is open and either verbal or contractual. In the case of Volenti Non-Fit Injuria, the plaintiff’s consent serves as a defense against him.
