Jamia Hamdard Institute Of Legal.docx

Jamia hamdard institute of legal Studies and research (hilsr)

ACADEMIC SESSION: 2018-19

LAW OF TORTS TOPIC: ‘Volenti non fit injuria’

Submitted To: Mohd Owais Farooqui (Convener, Moot Court Committee)

Submitted By: Shahnawaz B.A. LL.B. 1st Semester Roll No: 12 Section: B

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It feels great pleasure in submitting this research project to

Mohd Owais

Farooqui without whose guidance this project would not have been completed successfully. I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude towards my parents and friends who guided me and helped me at every possible step.

SHAHNAWAZ Roll. No. 12

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1) INTRODUCTION 1.1.

Torts

1.2.

General Defences

2) The Meaning Of Volenti Non Fit Injuria 2.1.

Voluntary

2.2.

Agreement

2.3.

Knowledge

3) The origin and development of Volenti non fit injuria 3.1. Implied Consent 3.2. Knowing And Willingness 3.3. Exceptions To The Maxim 4) The various applications of Volenti non fit injuria 4.1. Volenti non fit injuria in Employment Relationships 4.2. Volenti non fit injuria in Rescue Cases 4.3. Volenti Non Fit Injuria In The Cases Of Suicide 4.4. Volenti Non Fit Injuria In The Case Of Sporting Events 4.5. Volenti Non Fit Injuria In Relation To Drunk Drivers 4.6. Volenti non fit injuria – Occupiers Liability 5) Contributory Negligence and Volenti non fit injuria 6) Conclusion 7) Bibliography

INTRODUCTION  TORTS The word ‘tort’ is derived from the Latin term ‘tortum’ which means ‘twisted’. Thus, a tort basically refers to an act which is wrong or twisted. Generally speaking, it is an injury that one person or entity inflicts (accidentally or intentionally) on another person. “A tort is a violation of a right of a person or a breach of duty of another towards him. The right and duty arise under the general law as between a person or persons in a particular situation.” Or “a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action for unliquidated damages, and which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of a trust or other merely equitable obligation.” Or “A tort may be defined as a civil wrong independent of contract for which appropriate remedy is an action for unliquidated damages.” Tort law is mainly based on the legal maxim, ‘ubi jus ibi remedium’, which means, that where a right exists, there lies a remedy too. “The primary function of the Law of Torts is to provide remedies to claimants who have suffered harm, loss, or an infringement of rights. The harm includes physical injury to persons or property, damage to persons’ reputations or financial interests, and interference with persons’ use and enjoyment of their land.” When this legal right of a person is violated, the injured party can ask for remedy in the form of ‘damages’ or compensation. Now, compensation can be of a few types- compensatory damages and punitive damages. The former aims at compensating the injured (called ‘plaintiff’ in tort law) and the latter aims at punishing the wrong-doer (called the

‘defendant’ in tort law). Some tort cases seek something called an ‘injunctive relief’. An injunctive relief refers to a court order that requires the defendant to do something or prevents him from doing something. “Tortious liability arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by law; this duty is towards persons generally and its breach is redress able by an action for unliquidated damages.” This brings us to distinguish between liquidated and unliquidated damages. The liquidated damages refer to the damages the value of which are fixed and had been decided beforehand. Whereas, unliquidated damages refer to those damages the value of which are not fixed and they are not predefined ones. “The origins of tort law can be found in old English procedural law. To file an action in a court, one needed a writ, which could only be obtained from the head of the judiciary, the Lord Chancellor. The law of torts is strongly influenced by its history: the focus is not primarily on rules but on the right cause of action” . In India, tort law has developed mainly as a part of the common law system that influenced India after India was colonized by the British. However, tort law has not developed much India. “The law of torts administered in India is the English common law of torts so far as it is available to the Indian society and circumstances.” Thus, the application of common law, more specifically tort law in India has a selective application. Every tort is a cause of action, which is simply a legally accepted reason for bringing a suit” But, the law of torts also provides certain ‘defences’ to the defendant by using which the defendant can escape liability. This is done mainly to ensure the just application of the principles of tort law. The word defence “...is sometimes used to refer to any argument that persuades the court to find that the defendant is not liable.” These defences which apply to most of the torts in general, are called the ‘general defences.’ The various types of general defences include volenti non fit injuria, act of God, necessity, contributory negligence,

public policy etc. In this paper, we will specifically deal in detail with the defence of ‘volenti non fit injuria.’

 GENERAL DEFENCES Some specific defences are available in a suit for tort. These defences are specific and find application in relation to a fixed nature of tort. Other defences are general in nature and can be classified as:  The defence of Consent  When plaintiff is the wrongdoer  Inevitable Accident  Act of God  Act in relation to Private Defence  Necessity  Act in respect to Statutory Authority

The defence of Consent: This defence is based on the principle of ‘Volenti non fit injuria’. A person, who has voluntarily agreed to suffer harm, cannot claim damages for such harm. This consent to suffer harm can be either express or even implied. How-ever, such consent must be given freely and not obtained by fraud or any other illegal means.

When plaintiff is the wrongdoer: This defence is based on the maxim ‘Ex turpi causa non oritur actio’ which means ‘no action rises from an immoral cause’. So, when the action of the plaintiff is unlawful itself, it might lead to a defence in general.

Inevitable Accident: Inevitable accident is such where the injury could not have been avoided in spite of reasonable care on part of the defendant. In a suit for tort it is always a good defence if it can be shown that the defendant could not avoid the injury sustained by the plaintiff in spite of his reasonable effort.

Act of God: An Act of God is an inevitable accident arising out of the working of natural forces which is beyond human control and unprecedented in nature and type. It must be extraordinary and unanticipated as well. The Rule of Strict Liability (as in Rylands v. Fletcher) has incorporated the concept of this defence.

Act in relation to Private Defence: In case of imminent threat to life or property, use of force for defence of the same is justified. However, use of such force must be reasonable and should be in proportion to the requirement.

Necessity: If damage is caused to avoid a greater damage, it becomes a good defence.

Act in respect to Statutory Authority: Any damage arising out of an act that the law prescribes or the statute authorises will never become actionable even though in absence of such statutory authority it is an offence in tort.

THE MEANING OF VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA Volenti non fit injuria is a defence of limited application in tort law. A direct translation of the latin phrase volenti non fit injuria is, 'to one who volunteers, no harm is done'. Where the defence of volenti applies it operates as a complete defence absolving the Defendant of all liability. It is often stated that the Claimant consents to the the risk of harm, however, the defence of volenti is much more limited in its application and should not be confused with the defence of consent in relation to trespass. The defence of volenti non fit injuria requires a freely entered and voluntary agreement by the Claimant, in full knowledge of the circumstances, to absolve the Defendant of all legal consequences of their actions. There is a considerable overlap with contributory negligence and since the introduction of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, the courts have been less willing to make a finding of volenti preferring to apportion loss between the parties rather than taking an all or nothing approach.

 THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEFENCE ARE THUS:  A voluntary  Agreement  Knowledge

Voluntary : The agreement must be voluntary and freely entered for the defence of volenti non fit injuria to succeed. If the Claimant is not in a position to exercise free choice, the defence will not succeed. This element is most commonly seen in relation to employment relationships, rescuers and suicide.

AGREEMENT: The second requirement for the defence of volenti non fit injuria is agreement. The agreement may be express or implied. An example of an express agreement would be where there exists a contractual term or notice. However, this would be subject to the controls of s.2 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. An implied agreement may exist where the Claimant's action in the circumstances demonstrates a willingness to accept not only the physical risks but also the legal risks.

Smith v. Baker & Sons [1891] The Claimant sued his employers for injuries sustained while in the course of working in their employment. He was employed to hold a drill in position whilst two other workers took it in turns to hit the drill with a hammer. Next to where he was working another set of workers were engaged in taking out stones and putting them into a steam crane which swung over the place where the Claimant was working. The Claimant was injured when a stone fell out of the crane and struck him on the head. The Defendant raised the defence of volenti non fit injuria in that the Claimant knew it was a dangerous practice and had complained that it was dangerous but nevertheless continued. At trial the jury found for the Claimant. The Defendant appealed and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal holding that the Claimant was precluded from recovering as he had willingly accepted the risk. The Claimant appealed to the House of Lords.

The Decision The appeal was allowed. The Claimant may have been aware of the danger of the job, but had not consented to the lack of care. He was therefore entitled to recover damages.

Lord Watson: "In its application to questions between the employer and the employed, the maxim as now used generally imports that the workman had either expressly or by implication agreed to take upon himself the risks attendant upon the particular work which he was engaged to perform, and from which he has suffered injury. The question which has most frequently to be considered is not whether he voluntarily and rashly exposed himself to injury, but whether he agreed that, if injury should befall him, the risk was to be his and not his masters. When, as is commonly the case, his acceptance or nonacceptance of the risk is left to implication, the workman cannot reasonably be held to have undertaken it unless he knew of its existence, and appreciated or had the means of appreciating its danger. But assuming that he did so, I am unable to accede to the suggestion that the mere fact of his continuing at his work, with such knowledge and appreciation, will in every case necessarily imply his acceptance. Whether it will have that effect or not depends, in my opinion, to a considerable extent upon the nature of the risk, and the workman's connection with it, as well as upon other considerations which must vary according to the circumstances of each case.”

KNOWLEDGE: The Claimant must have knowledge of the full nature and extent of the risk that they ran.

Wooldridge v. Sumner [1963] The claimant was a photographer at a horse show. He was situated within the ring of the horse show and not behind the barriers where the spectators were housed. He was on a bench with a Miss Smallwood who was a director of the company which employed the Claimant. He had been taking little interest in the proceedings and was not experienced in regard to horses. During the

competition, one of the horses, Work of Art owned by the Defendant, came galloping at great speed towards the bench where they were sitting. The Claimant took fright at the approach of the galloping horse and attempted unsuccessfully to pull Miss Smallwood off the bench. He stepped or fell back into the course of the horse which passed three or few feet behind the bench, and was knocked down. The Claimant brought an action in negligence arguing the rider had lost control of the horse and was going too fast. The defendant raised the defence of volenti non fit injuria.

Held: There was no breach of duty so the Claimant's action failed. On the issue of volenti non fit injuria it was held that consent to the risk of injury was insufficient. There must be consent to the breach of duty in full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk.

Diplock, LJ: "The maxim in English law presupposes a tortious act by the defendant. The consent that is relevant is not consent to the risk of injury but consent to the lack of reasonable care that may produce that risk… and requires on the part of the plaintiff at the time at which he gives his consent full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk that he ran"

THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA The legal maxim, volenti non fit injuria, as we know, says that, if a person voluntarily consents to a risk, no liability can arise against the defendant for the same. However, there comes a need to clarify what exactly consent means.

 KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT AS AN ELEMENTS OF VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA “The essence of the volenti defence is that the claimant voluntarily assented to the commission of the tort and therefore cannot complain about the damage. Sometimes voluntary assent to a crucial element of the tort will appear to be enough...but such assent only works if it is impossible to separate that element from the damage suffered by the claimant.” The controversy was whether acceptance of the risk can (or must) be inferred from the mere fact that the man goes on working in full knowledge of the risk involved. Then came up the case of, Thomas v. Quartermaine, in which the judge ruled, “Knowledge is not a conclusive decision in itself. But when it is a knowledge under circumstances that leave no inference but one, namely, that the risk has been voluntarily encountered, the defence is complete.” “Quite apart from the other requirements of the defence, knowing about a risk is not the same as being willing to accept it.”

 IMPLIED CONSENT The case of Thomas v. Quartermine was referred to while deciding the case of Smith v. Baker. In this case, thus, more precisely, the case lays down the rule of

‘implied consent’. This means that, when the plaintiff undertakes voluntarily to do something that is intrinsically dangerous, he also automatically consents to the harm and risks inevitably accompany the act. This holds true even if the defendant has taken reasonable care to avoid the harm as much as possible.

 KNOWING AND WILLINGNESS Now, knowledge as we have discussed earlier, is a subjective concept. It is a loose idea. For example, we know of the risks and dangers that can be there in our homes, in the office area or in other places. We know of car drivers being negligent, or maybe we have even seen drivers who are habitually careful and steady, becoming negligent sometimes . However, if such general knowledge is considered to be qualifying criteria for the defence of volenti non fit injuria, then no situation will remain in which a plaintiff can successfully sue the defendant for the tort of negligence. But, the plaintiff must have the full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk.

 EXCEPTIONS TO THE MAXIM Discussing the relation between negligence and the application of volenti non fit injuria, it can be said that where a work is dangerous and the plaintiff has been subjected to some kind of risk, whether he has been injured or not, if the risky situation has been created or enhanced by the negligence of the defendant, then the defendant will not be considered to have consented to the risk. However, the defence of volenti non fit injuria does not work as a defence in rescue cases.

THE VARIOUS APPLICATIONS OF VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA

The defence of Volenti non fit injuria has a broad spectrum of applications., mostly in the tort of negligence where the plaintiff’s duty of care is violated. Some of the popular applications are as follows:

 VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA IN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS As long ago as 1891, the House of Lords recognised that an employee who complained of unsafe practice, but nevertheless continued to work could not truly be said to have voluntarily agreed to waive their legal rights:

Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v. Shatwell [1965] The claimants were brothers who were qualified shotfirers employed by the defendant. They were injured as a result of an explosion at the defendant's quarry caused by the brothers' negligence. They had insufficient wire to test a circuit to allow them to test from a shelter. Another worker had gone to fetch more wire but the brothers decided to go ahead and test with the shorter wire. Each brother claimed against the defendant based on their employer's vicarious liability for the negligence and breach of statutory duty of the other brother. The defendant raised the defence of volenti non fit injuria in that the brothers had full knowledge of the risk and were acting against express instructions. At trial the judge held that the defence of volenti could not apply where there was breach of a statutory duty. This was upheld in the Court of Appeal.

Held: The appeal was allowed. The brothers had deliberately acted in defiance of the employer's express instructions in full knowledge of the risks. The workers were

under the statutory duty not the employer. The employer had been instrumental in bringing in the statutory regulations and ensured all workers were aware of them. They had also previously dismissed a worker for flouting the regulations.

 VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA IN RESCUE CASES A rescuer is not regarded as having freely and voluntarily accepted the risk.

Baker v TE Hopkins & Son Ltd [1959] Mr Ward and Mr Wileman were employed by the defendant, Hopkins. They had been called to clean out a well. The well was 50ft deep and 6ft wide. Hopkins tested the atmosphere in the well by putting a lighted candle down the well. The candle returned still lighted and thus he concluded the atmosphere was fine. He and Ward then took a petrol motored pump down the well started it up and left the well leaving the engine running on its own. The motor ran for 1 1/2 hours before it stopped of its own accord. Before leaving the site Mr Hopkins told Mr Ward and Mr Wileman not to go down the well until the fumes have cleared. The following morning Hopkins again told the two not to go down the well until he had arrived on the site. In breach of these orders Mr. Ward went down the well and was overcome by fumes. Mr Wileman called for assistance and went down the well after him. The claimant, Dr Baker, then arrived on the scene. He too went into the well to seek to rescue the two. Unfortunately all three died of carbon monoxide poisoning. The defendant contended that the act of the doctor acted as a novus actus interveniens andsought to invoke volenti non fit injuria.

Held: The doctors actions were not a novus actus interveniens. It was foreseeable that if a defendant by his negligence places another in peril that someone may come to his rescue and the doctor's actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. The Claimant's action was not defeated by volenti non fit injuria. He was and as such his actions did not count as freely and voluntarily accepting the risk.

Morris LJ:

It was said that Dr. Baker had been "unreasonably" brave. If a rescuer acts with a wanton disregard of his own safety it might be that in some circumstances it might be held that any injury to him was not the result of the negligence that caused the situation of danger. Such a contention cannot be here asserted. Dr. Baker tied a strong rope round his body and arranged for the rope to be held by those on the surface, and arranged to maintain oral communication with them. It must be remembered also that the chances of success of his attempt would diminish moment by moment if he tarried. He in no way acted recklessly or negligently. In my judgment, the learned Judge came to a correct conclusion in regard to the claim made by his executors.

 VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA IN THE CASES OF SUICIDE Where the Claimant commits suicide, originally it was held that they would be treated as volens if they were of sound mind, but if they were of unsound mind the defence of volenti non fit injuria would have no application:

Reeves v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2000] Martin Lynch committed suicide whilst in a police cell. He had attempted suicide earlier that day in the cells at the magistrates. He had also attempted suicide on previous occasions. He had been seen by a doctor at the police station on arrival who reported that he was not schizophrenic or depressed but was a suicide risk. The custody officer checked him at 1.57 pm and left the hatch open. He was found at 2.05 pm having used his shirt as a ligature secured by the open hatch. He was unable to be resuscitated and died a week later. The defendant argued that as Lynch was of sound mind his voluntary and informed act of suicide broke the chain of causation.

Held: The act of suicide was the very thing that the police were under a duty to prevent to treat this as a novus actus interveniens would deprive the duty of any substance. Therefore the defendant was liable, however damages were reduced by 50% under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945.

 VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA IN THE CASE OF SPORTING EVENTS A participant in sporting events is taken to consent to the risk of injury which occurs in the course of the ordinary performance of the sport.

Wooldridge v Sumner [1963] The claimant was a photographer at a horse show. He was situated within the ring of the horse show and not behind the barriers where the spectators were housed. He was on a bench with a Miss Smallwood who was a director of the company which employed the Claimant. He had been taking little interest in the proceedings and was not experienced in regard to horses. During the competition, one of the horses, Work of Art owned by the Defendant, came galloping at great speed towards the bench where they were sitting. The Claimant took fright at the approach of the galloping horse and attempted unsuccessfully to pull Miss Smallwood off the bench. He stepped or fell back into the course of the horse which passed three or few feet behind the bench, and was knocked down. The Claimant brought an action in negligence arguing the rider had lost control of the horse and was going too fast. The defendant raised the defence of volenti non fit injuria.

Held: There was no breach of duty so the Claimant's action failed. On the issue of volenti non fit injuria it was held that consent to the risk of injury was insufficient. There must be consent to the breach of duty in full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk.

Diplock LJ: "The maxim in English law presupposes a tortious act by the defendant. The consent that is relevant is not consent to the risk of injury but consent to the lack

of reasonable care that may produce that risk… and requires on the part of the plaintiff at the time at which he gives his consent full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk that he ran"

 VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA IN RELATION TO DRUNK DRIVERS In Dann v. Hamilton it was held that a person accepting a lift from a drunk driver was not to be treated as volens unless the drunkenness was so extreme and so glaring that accepting a lift would be equivalent of to intermeddling with an unexploded bomb or walking on the edge of an unfenced cliff. An example of where this was successfully invoked can be seen:

Dann v. Hamilton [1939] The Claimant was injured when she was a willing passenger in the car driven by the Mr Hamilton. He had been drinking and the car was involved in a serious crash which killed him. In a claim for damages the Defendant raised the defence of volenti non fit injuria in that in accepting the lift knowing of his drunken condition she had voluntarily accepted the risk.

Held: The defence was unsuccessful. The claimant was entitled to damages.

Asquith J: "There may be cases in which the drunkenness of the driver at the material time is so extreme and so glaring that to accept a lift from him is like engaging in an intrinsically and obviously dangerous occupation, intermeddling with an unexploded bomb or walking on the edge of an unfenced cliff. It is not necessary to decide whether in such a case the maxim 'volenti non fit injuria' would apply, for in the present case I find as a fact that the driver's degree of intoxication fell short of this degree".

 VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA – OCCUPIERS LIABILITY S. 2(5) Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 and s. 1(6) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 provide that occupiers owe no duty in respect to risks willingly accepted by that person as his. It appears that there is no need to establish an agreement. For an application of the Scottish equivalent provision see:

Titchener v. British Railways Board [1983] The Claimant, a 15 year old girl, was out walking with her boyfriend who was 16. They took a short cut across a railway line and they were both hit by a train. He was killed and she was seriously injured. There was a gap in the fence at the place where they crossed and there was a pathway leading to this gap which suggested that there was repeated trespass. Also it was accepted that either the Defendant was aware of the gap or would have been aware upon reasonable inspection. The Defendant raised the defence of volenti under s.2(3) of the Occupiers Liability (Scotland) Act 1960

Held: The scope of the duty owed to trespassers varies on the circumstances. On the facts of this case the Defendants did not owe a duty to a 15 year old trespasser who was fully aware of the risks. Even if the Defendant did owe a duty of care the defence of volenti under s.2(3) would succeed.

Lord Ross: "In my view, the pursuer's own evidence referred to above, along with the other evidence in the case, is, in my opinion, sufficient to establish the defence of volenti non fit injuria. Such defence is open to the defenders under section 2 (3) of the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960, and no duty under section 2 (1) of the Act is imposed upon an occupier to a person entering on the premises in respect of risks which that person has willingly accepted as his. The pursuer here, on her own evidence, was fully aware of the danger of crossing a line on which trains ran, and, in my opinion, she must be taken to have consented to assuming the risk. There is a passage in her cross-examination which proceeded as follows:

"Q. And you knew that it would be dangerous to cross the line because of the presence of these trains? A. Yes. Q. Well why did you do it if you knew it would be dangerous? A. Because it was shorter to get to the brickworks. Q. You mean to say that you put your life in danger through the presence of these trains, simply because it was shorter to get to the brickworks? A. Well, before my accident I never ever thought that it would happen to me, that I would never get hit by a train, it was just a chance that I took." A person who takes a chance necessarily consents to take what comes."

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA Whether a person who voluntarily proceeds into an obviously unsafe situation has merely assumed the risk, or has been guilty of contributory negligence in so proceeding, is often a close question. It is held in safe-place law cases that conduct constitutes contributory negligence, rather than assumption of risk, "if the risk of harm involved is of such magnitude as to outweigh what the law regards as the utility of the act or the manner in which it is done.” In other words, if assuming the risk was reasonable under all the circumstances, it is no defense under the safe-place law; if unreasonable, it is contributory negligence. What is "reasonable" is measured by what ordinary and prudent men do under similar circumstances. It appears that submitting to a dangerous situation "while getting about the premises in the ordinary manner provided," and performing duties of employment under conditions created by the employer would be merely assumption of risk; that is, would be examples of utility outweighing dangers. The fact that the hazardous condition was encountered in the course of work is significant. And where defendant landlord had the duty of keeping a stairway lighted, plaintiff tenant was not negligent in proceeding onto the unlighted stairway, and an employee was not negligent in using an obvious unsafe ladder provided by his employer, and an acrobat was not negligent in using the unsafe stage of his sponsors. Also, since the passing of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act, 1945 the defendant’s liability is based on the portion of his fault i.e. both the plaintiff and the defendant, in the case of Contributory Negligence, are at fault. This is not the same in the cases of Volenti Non Fit Injuria. Volenti Non Fit Injuria is an absolute defence.

CONCLUSION In conclusion, we can see from the above research, sources and cases that Volenti Non Fit Injuria, even though just a defence of tort has a broad spectrum of applications but, as we proposed in the hypothesis the scope of this defence is in direct relation with duty of care and the commitment of a negligent act. The application of the defence over time similarly depend on the what is a negligent act in that period of time. As we have seen in the various cases discussed above the application of this defence cannot be limited or fixed for a given situation. Due to these variables, we can also conclude that with the changing times, situations, society, law, country, etc., this concept can never stop developing. Hence, it is safe to say that the defence of Volenti Non Fit Injuria will continue to evolve, be interpreted and be applied in various ways over the course of time. The hypothesis is successfully tested to draw valid conclusions.

BILBIOGRAPHY

BOOKS:

 Dr. R. K. Bangia , “Law of Torts”. 

Justice G P Singh, “The Law of Torts”.

WEBSITES: 

http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Volenti-non-fit-injuria.php



http://notes-law.blogspot.in/2008/08/law-on-torts-part-1.html



http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com