1. Volenti Non fit Injuria (consent)
When a person consents for infliction of an harm upon himself, he has no remedy for that in Tort. That means, if a person has consented to do something or has given permission to another to do certain thing, and if he is injured because of that, he cannot claim damages. However, the action causing harm must not go beyond the limit of what has been consented.
Consent, rather informed consent plays a major role in the medical profession. In a New York case , Schloendroff v. New York Hospital it was stated :-
‘Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s consent commits an assault, for which he is liable in …show more content…
In medico-legal cases, consent of the victim is necessary for examination and absence of legally effective consent is an essential element of crime. If legally effective consent is given, the application of force on part of the doctor would be lawful.
2. 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. A person cannot take advantage of his own wrong. This principle has been in use since a long time as it is just and equitable. However, this defence exists only if the injury happens because of a wrongful act of the plaintiff. It does not exist if the injury happens because of a wrongful act of the defendant even if the plaintiff was doing a wrongful but unrelated
When a person consents for infliction of an harm upon himself, he has no remedy for that in Tort. That means, if a person has consented to do something or has given permission to another to do certain thing, and if he is injured because of that, he cannot claim damages. However, the action causing harm must not go beyond the limit of what has been consented.
Consent, rather informed consent plays a major role in the medical profession. In a New York case , Schloendroff v. New York Hospital it was stated :-
‘Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s consent commits an assault, for which he is liable in …show more content…
In medico-legal cases, consent of the victim is necessary for examination and absence of legally effective consent is an essential element of crime. If legally effective consent is given, the application of force on part of the doctor would be lawful.
2. 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. A person cannot take advantage of his own wrong. This principle has been in use since a long time as it is just and equitable. However, this defence exists only if the injury happens because of a wrongful act of the plaintiff. It does not exist if the injury happens because of a wrongful act of the defendant even if the plaintiff was doing a wrongful but unrelated