Volenti non fit injuria

A person who freely and knowingly agrees to run a risk of harm cannot sue for the harm that follows. Consent is a complete defence in tort.

1. The plaintiff knew the nature and extent of the risk.
2. The plaintiff agreed to run the risk freely and voluntarily.
3. The harm is within the risk accepted.

• Smith v. Baker (1891), House of Lords: a worker knew a crane carried stones over his head. Held: knowing of a danger is not the same as agreeing to take it.
• Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club (1933), England: a spectator at a race was hurt by a car leaving the track. Held: he accepted the ordinary risks of watching the race.

Indian Penal Code, Sections 87 to 92 (now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) deal with consent as a defence in crime.

• Rescue cases: a person who is hurt while rescuing someone is not held to have consented to the danger.
• The defence does not cover negligence the plaintiff did not know of or did not agree to.

Asked with the exceptions (rescue, unfair contract, statutory duty). Distinguish it from contributory negligence.

Volunteered for the risk, so no claim.

Free and informed consent to a risk bars a claim for the harm.