Volenti non fit injuria
Latin: To one who is willing, no injury is done
Also called: Defence of consent, Voluntary assumption of risk, Leave and licence
A person who freely and with full knowledge consents to a risk of harm cannot sue for the harm that results. It is a general defence in the law of torts.
Explained
Volenti non fit injuria is a general defence in tort. Where the claimant, with full knowledge of the nature and extent of a risk, freely and voluntarily agrees to run it, he cannot complain of harm that results from it. Consent may be express, as in a signed consent to surgery, or implied from conduct, as when a spectator at a cricket match accepts the ordinary risk of being hit by the ball. Indian courts apply the defence as part of the common law of torts, which has no general statute in India.
Two elements must be shown: the claimant knew of the risk, and he freely agreed to bear it. Knowledge alone is not enough. In Smith v. Baker (1891) the House of Lords held that a workman who knew of the danger from a crane swinging stones over his head had not agreed to bear that risk merely by continuing to work; the maxim is volenti non fit injuria, not scienti non fit injuria. Consent obtained by fraud or under compulsion is no consent, and consent to one risk does not cover a different one: a patient who consents to an operation does not consent to the surgeon's negligence.
The defence has recognised limits. It does not apply to rescue cases. In Haynes v. Harwood (1935) a police constable injured while stopping runaway horses in a crowded street could recover, because a person acting under a legal or moral duty to rescue others from danger created by the defendant's negligence is not treated as having consented to the risk. The defence also does not protect an act that is itself unlawful, and it is narrowly applied in employment cases.
It differs from contributory negligence, which only reduces damages where the claimant failed to take care for his own safety, while volenti is a complete defence. Criminal law has a parallel in Section 25 of the BNS, under which an act not intended or known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt is not an offence by reason of harm to a consenting person above eighteen, subject to Section 28 on consent given under fear or misconception. Examiners test the scienti point, rescue cases and medical negligence.
What the law says
Nothing which is not intended to cause death, or grievous hurt, and which is not known by the doer to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, to any person, above eighteen years of age, who has given consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm; or by reason of any harm which it may be known by the doer to be likely to cause to any such person who has consented to take the risk of that harm.
Illustration.
A and Z agree to fence with each other for amusement. This agreement implies the consent of each to suffer any harm which, in the course of such fencing, may be caused without foul play; and if A, while playing fairly, hurts Z, A commits no offence.
Criminal law parallel: harm to a consenting adult is not an offence
Earlier law: IPC 87. Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, done by consent.
A consent is not such a consent as is intended by any section of this Sanhita,—
(a) if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception; or
(b) if the consent is given by a person who, from unsoundness of mind, or intoxication, is unable to understand the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his consent; or
Consent under fear or misconception is not valid consent
Earlier law: IPC 90. Consent known to be given under fear or misconception.
Example
For example, a spectator at a motor race is hit by debris from an ordinary crash on the track and cannot sue, as he accepted that risk, but he can sue if he is hurt because the organiser carelessly left a barrier unfixed.
For the exam
- Requires both knowledge of the risk and free agreement to bear it.
- Mere knowledge is not consent: volenti, not scienti (Smith v. Baker).
- Rescuers are not barred by volenti (Haynes v. Harwood).
- Consent to an operation is not consent to the surgeon's negligence.
- Volenti is a complete defence; contributory negligence only reduces damages.
26 questions in the Law Maker question bank use this maxim. Practise Law of Torts questions
Related terms
- Damnum sine injuriaActual loss or harm caused without the violation of any legal right gives no cause of action in tort.
- Injuria sine damnoThe violation of a legal right is actionable even though the plaintiff has suffered no actual loss. It applies to torts actionable per se, such as trespass and false imprisonment.
- Res ipsa loquiturThe thing speaks for itself. Where an accident is of a kind that does not ordinarily happen without negligence and the thing was under the defendant's control, negligence may be inferred.
- Novus actus interveniensA new, independent act or event that intervenes between the defendant's conduct and the harm and breaks the chain of causation, so that the defendant is not liable for the harm that follows.
- Ex turpi causa non oritur actioA court will not lend its aid to a person whose cause of action is founded on an illegal or immoral act.
Further reading
Checked 6 November 2026. Statutory text is quoted from the Bare Acts library, taken from India Code. See the full glossary.