Legal Principles: 1. A person is liable for his negligence when he owed a duty of care to others and commits a breach of that duty causing injury thereby. 2. Volenti non fit injuria is defence to negligence.Factual Situation: Anil and his wife, Reena, were in a shop as customers, where a skylight in the roof of the shop was broken, owing to the negligence of the contractors engaged in repairing the roof, and a portion of the glass fell and struck Anil causing him a severe shock. Reena, who was standing close to him, was not touched by the falling glass, but, reasonably believing her husband to be in danger, she instinctively clutched his arm, and tried to pull him from the spot. In doing this, she strained her leg in such a way as to bring about a recurrence of thrombosis. Anil and Reena are claiming compensation for their injuries which were caused due to the negligence of the shop owners. The shop owners are denying liability on the grounds of volenti non fit injuria. The defence of volenti non fit injuria (AILET 2018)

🎲 Try a Random Question  |  Total Questions in Quiz: 566  |  🧠 Study this quiz with Flashcards
This question is part of a full practice quiz:
Legal Aptitude Test — practice the complete quiz, review flashcards, or try a random question.

Each question consists of legal principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. Such proposition may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. You have to apply the principles to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Only one of the alternatives, i.e., (A), (B), (C), or (D) is the most reasonable conclusion. Remember: you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given for every question.

Legal Principles: 1. A person is liable for his negligence when he owed a duty of care to others and commits a breach of that duty causing injury thereby. 2. Volenti non fit injuria is defence to negligence.<br>Factual Situation: Anil and his wife, Reena, were in a shop as customers, where a skylight in the roof of the shop was broken, owing to the negligence of the contractors engaged in repairing the roof, and a portion of the glass fell and struck Anil causing him a severe shock. Reena, who was standing close to him, was not touched by the falling glass, but, reasonably believing her husband to be in danger, she instinctively clutched his arm, and tried to pull him from the spot. In doing this, she strained her leg in such a way as to bring about a recurrence of thrombosis. Anil and Reena are claiming compensation for their injuries which were caused due to the negligence of the shop owners. The shop owners are denying liability on the grounds of volenti non fit injuria. The defence of volenti non fit injuria (AILET 2018)






ADVERTISEMENT