📖 Read the passage, then answer the questions below
Volenti non fit injuria -- "to one who consents, no injury is done" -- is a defence in the law of torts that bars a claimant from recovering damages for harm to which the claimant freely and knowingly consented. The defence rests on the idea that a person who voluntarily accepts a known risk cannot later complain of the harm that risk actually produces.
Two elements must both be established for the defence to succeed. First, the claimant must have had actual knowledge of the specific risk involved, not merely a general awareness that some risk exists; consenting to a risk one does not actually understand is not genuine consent to that risk. Second, the claimant's acceptance of the risk must have been entirely free and voluntary, given without any form of compulsion, whether physical, economic, or arising from the claimant's employment relationship with the defendant.
The defence does not apply in several recurring situations. It does not extend to a risk created by the defendant's own negligence going beyond what the claimant actually consented to -- consenting to the ordinary risks inherent in an activity is not consent to a defendant's own careless conduct that creates a materially greater or different danger. It also does not apply where the claimant's apparent consent was not truly free, such as where an employee accepts a risk only because refusing would mean losing their livelihood, since consent given under economic necessity of this kind is not treated as genuinely voluntary. Nor does the defence apply where the claimant, though aware of a general danger, had no actual knowledge of the specific risk that in fact caused the harm.
Where volenti non fit injuria is successfully established, it operates as a complete defence, barring the claim entirely rather than merely reducing the damages recoverable, since it denies that any actionable wrong occurred at all once genuine, informed, and voluntary consent to the specific risk is shown.
Question 1
A person attending a firework display voluntarily stands behind a properly marked safety barrier, accepting the known, ordinary risk of stray sparks common to such displays. A firework, due to the organiser's failure to follow basic safety protocols entirely unrelated to the ordinary risk of sparks, malfunctions and causes a serious explosion within the supposedly safe barrier area, injuring the spectator. Does volenti non fit injuria bar the claim?
Question 2
A person attending a boxing match as a paying spectator consents to the ordinary risks of watching two boxers fight according to the rules. During the match, one boxer deliberately attacks a spectator sitting at ringside, entirely outside the rules of the sport. The injured spectator sues the boxer. Does volenti non fit injuria bar this claim?
Question 3
Consider the following three independent situations:
Situation P: A skier voluntarily skis on a marked difficult slope, aware of the inherent risk of falling, and is injured in an ordinary fall unrelated to any negligence by the resort.
Situation Q: An employee accepts a hazardous task only because refusing would result in immediate termination and she has no other means of support.
Situation R: A spectator at a motor race is injured when a car, driven negligently in a manner going well beyond the ordinary risks of racing, veers into the crowd area.
In which of these situations would volenti non fit injuria most plausibly succeed as a complete defence?
Question 4
Assertion (A): Volenti non fit injuria merely reduces the amount of damages a claimant can recover, once successfully established.
Reason (R): The defence, once successfully established, denies that any actionable wrong occurred at all, operating as a complete bar to the claim rather than a partial reduction.
Which of the following is correct?
Question 5
A spectator at a cricket match is struck by a ball hit into the stands during ordinary play, a risk inherent in and well known to attend such matches. The spectator sues the cricket club. Can the club successfully raise volenti non fit injuria?