Volenti non fit injuria meaning

At its very core, the defence of volenti non fit injuria (‘to a willing person, no injury is done’) rests on the claimant appreciating the hazard presented and voluntarily accepting the possibility of harm in that situation. In those conditions, if harm follows, the claimant has no basis to complain in law. The defence is commonly abbreviated simply to volenti. Once made out, volenti operates as a full and conclusive defence. The rationale is that consent cannot be sliced up to suggest the claimant accepted some dangers yet rejected others. Consequently, success with this plea is confined to cases that are plain. The volenti plea is seldom open in actions alleging breach of statutory duty in particular. Requirements for bringing the defence Three essential elements must exist in order to advance the defence: capacity knowledge and willingness agreement (express or implied) Capacity The claimant must possess the capacity to provide their consent in the manner required by the situation...

Any attempt to limit or exclude liability for defective products in a contract term, notice, or other provision is prohibited. Under CPA 1987, matters fall into four main categories: the injured person cannot discharge the burden of proof the defendant establishes one of the statutory defences in CPA 1987, s 4 the claimant is barred by one or more of the CPA 1987 time limits the defences of contributory negligence or volenti non fit injuria (the willing acceptance of risk) apply Although liability imposed by CPA 1987 is strict, it is not absolute. There remains room to avoid liability where producers can make out one or more statutory defences. Statutory defences Compliance with UK or assimilated EU law This statutory defence will succeed if the defendant demonstrates the defect arose from compliance with a requirement imposed by UK or EU law. From IP completion day (11 pm on 31 December 2020), this defence applies only to compliance with...

Defending a tort claim—general considerations In practice, many actions are defended by arguing that the defendant owed no duty to the claimant, that no duty was breached, or that the chain of causation was interrupted. In any of these situations, the claimant has not established that the defendant is prima facie liable. For guidance on proving liability in negligence, see the following Practice Notes: Negligence—key elements to establish a negligence claim Negligence—when does a duty of care arise? Negligence—when is the duty of care breached? This Practice Note examines the defences capable of excusing a defendant from liability where prima facie liability has been shown. Limitation defences in tort claims Even where a duty existed and was breached, a claimant may still find their case opposed or struck out if the defence can demonstrate that the proceedings are time-barred...

[ In the High Court of Justice OR In the COUNTY COURT AT [ insert ] ] [ [ Specify division ] ] [ [ Specify Specialist court ] ] [ [ Insert location ] District Registry ] Claim No: Between [ A B ] Claimant and [ X Y ] Defendant Defence The numbering adopted in this Defence corresponds to the paragraphs in the Particulars of Claim dated [ insert date ]. The contents of paragraph 1 are admitted. The matters in paragraph 2 are denied. The Defendant rejects any allegation of negligence, whether as asserted in paragraph 5 of the Particulars of Claim or otherwise...