CLAT Law of Torts Practice Questions With Solutions

Harm suffered voluntarily does not constitute a legal injury and is not actionable. This principle is embodied in the maxim volenti non fit injuria. A person cannot complain of harm to the chances of which he has exposed himself with his free consent and f reewill. The maxim volenti non fit injuria is founded on good sense and justice. A person who has invited or assented to an act being done towards him cannot, when he suffers from it, complain of it as a wrong. The maxim presupposes a tortious act by the defendant. The maxim applies, in the first place, to intentional acts which would otherwise be tortious. There are certain limitations to the application of this maxim: (i) It is no answer to a claim made by a workman against his employer for injury caused through a breach by the employer of a duty imposed upon him by a statute. But where the negligence or breach of statutory duty is on the part of an employee of the plaintif f who knowingly accepts the risk flowing from such breach and the employer -defendant is not guilty of negligence or breach of statutory duty, the defence of volenti non fit injuria is available to the defendant. (ii) Under an exigency caused by the defendant’s wrongful misconduct, consciously and deliberately faced a risk, even of death, whether the person endangered is one to whom he owes a duty of protection, as a member of his family, or is a mere stranger to whom h e owes no such special duty. The rescuer will not be deprived of his remedy merely because the risk which he runs is not the same as that run by the person whom he rescues. But where there is no need to take any risk, the person suffering harm in doing so cannot recover. (iii) To cover a case of negligence the defence on the basis of the maxim must be based on implied agreement whether amounting to contract or not. The defence is available only when the plaintiff freely and voluntarily, with full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk impliedly agreed to incur it and to waive a ny claim for injury. But when the plaintiff has no choice or when the notice is given at a stage when it is beyond the ability of the plaintiff to make a choice there can be no implied agreement and the defence on the basis of the maxim must fail. (iv) The maxim will also not apply when the act relied upon is done because of the psychological condition which the defendant’s breach of duty had induced.

On 7th May 2020, a major leakage of Styrene gas was reported from the plastics - manufacturing plant 'LG Polymers' located on the outskirts of the Visakhapatnam city. The accident took place when the cooling system of a polymers plant got clogged due to the mismanagement of factory workers and resulted in turning the city into a gas chamber. The gas which leaked was styrene gas, which is a ‘hazardous chemical’ under Rule 2(e) plus Entry 583 of Schedule I of the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Ch emical Rules 1989. Principle 1: Polluter Pays Principle The 'Doctrine of Polluter Pays' is a well -established principle of environmental law, which places an obligation of compensating the damage to the people who ought to reimburse it and also have the capacity to disburse it. The principle explicitly affirms that the person who damages or destructs the environment has the absolute obligation to bear the cost of ameliorating the environment. In Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India case, the Apex Court of India held that the polluter is legally responsible to r eimburse the individual sufferers as well as pay for the revitalization of the damaged environment. Principle 2: Principle of Strict Liability The principle of Strict Liability was established in the year 1868 in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, where the Court held that any person who uses his/her land in an 'unnatural manner' and who keeps any 'hazardous substance' on such premises would be hel d liable under the principle of strict liability for any 'damage' occurred on the 'escape' of such perilous substance. However, the person is liable only when there is non -natural use of land; the principle also restricts liability when the escape is due t o an act of strangers, Act of God, for example a natural calamity; due to the person injured or when it happens with the consent of the person injured or with statutory authority. Principle 3: Principle of Absolute Liability The absolute liability is a stringent form of Strict Liability as it is devoid of any exceptions that were mentioned under the earlier principle. for the first time in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India. This principle implies that whenever an enterp rise is engaged in any dangerous or hazardous activity that threatens the people working in the enterprise and those living nearby, it owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community that no harm will be caused. If harm is indeed caused, the enter prise will have to compensate for damages, and can‘t use exceptions provided in the case of strict liability. The enterprise can‘t claim that the harm has not been caused due to negligence (absence of due care) or that it had taken all reasonable precautio ns.