|
|
 |
| You are here: LEGAL ISSUES : Related Article |
|
Volenti Non Fit Injuria
The public at large is entitled to be left alone and unharmed. This is a legal right. There is however many incidents protected by law whereby a person is permitting others to act against them lawfully which prevents legal action.The public are protected legally by a duty of care.
If this duty is breached by another, then liability may arise leading to damages as a consequence of such a breach.One of the major defences available is that of voluntary assumption of risk. Particularly with sport and recreational activities, the law has developed to the extent that it is a defence to a claim for damages to plead that the participant consents to the inherent risks known to them and if the damage results from these inherent risks, then no liability attaches to the accused. This defence is known as assumption of risk (or consent), as well as having the latin name, "volenta non fit injuria".
In order that a defendant may succeed with a defence of consent, two things must be proved:
- that the plaintiff knew there was a risk
- that the plaintiff agreed to run the risk at personal expense"...if a person suffers harm after having consented to run the risk of this harm, that person cannot subsequently succeed in a tort (civil law) action for such harm, this is known as volenti non fit injuria"
Example: Alan Matthew Smith v. Brian Emerson (1986)This was a tort of assault; the defence of volenti non fit injuria (defence of consent) was used where the defendant was asking for the defence of voluntary assumption of risk.The plaintiff in this case claimed he was struck twice, once in the jaw and once in the right hand side of the face, during a football match.
But the defendant claims he accidentally bumped the plaintiff while in contention for the ball. If the defendant's account had been accepted then he was acting entirely within the rules of the game.The defendant denied all allegations but claimed that if he did make contact with the plaintiff it was within the rules of the game. The plaintiff produced witnesses in the form of three umpires and two spectators who said that the defendant ran up and with a clenched fist intentionally hit the plaintiff in the face. The plaintiff's acceptance of risk did not include being punched during a match, because this is not normal behaviour on the football field and is not accepted in the rules. Therefore the defendant was ordered to pay expenses and damages.
NB: Tort - the infringement of a legal rightPlaintiff - the person(s)/company/organisation bringing the actionDefendant - the person(s)/company/organisation defending the action
|
|
|
|
 |
|
| Check out this months player profile >>> |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
| Click here for fantastic investment opportunities >>> |
|
|
|
|
|
