| Citation | |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | |
| Issues | |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | |
| Judgment | |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
Facts
- The facts are that the defendants for the purposes of their own business used a method of breaking up castiron which consisted of dropping a heavyweight on pieces of iron resting on a bed of iron with the intention that these pieces should be broken into smaller pieces.
- The weight was dropped from a height of 35 feet with the inevitable result that pieces of iron flew about. It is common ground that they habitually flew to distances of four or five yards from the pit.
- Issues Before the Court
- Weather ordinary care and caution were being exercised or not?
- As ‘to the contention that deceased must have known that ordinary care and caution were being exercised, and yet continued working, that defence also fails, as, in my view, such ordinary care was not exercised.
- Weather ordinary care and caution were being exercised or not?
For how much amount the defendant was liable?
Principles
- Volenti non fit injuria;
- The danger,
- appreciated it, and
- voluntarily took the risk .
- Sceenti non fit injuria − no injury is done who has knowledge of the fact
- Ratio of the Case
- The contention was based on the maxim volenti non fit injuria, when the defendant company itself pleads that. it did not anticipate and could not have anticipated pieces flying over a distance of 90 feet, the bench does not see how they can plead that their deceased workman could possibly have anticipated it for himself, and thus the essential ingredient of that defence is lacking.
- If a person chooses to carry on dangerous operations of that kind, it is their duty not only to the public but to their servants to take adequate precautions that those pieces shall not cause injury.
- They ought to exercise ordinary care, caution and skill to prevent that. The mere fact an accident has happened is strong evidence in a case of that kind that they had not taken the ordinary care, caution, and skill required for preventing the happening of the event.
Decision of the Court
- The cross−appeal was therefore allowed with costs on Rs. 500, the amount awarded and the defendant was held liable.
As he could not prove that at such a valid distance the plaintiff had knowledge of the risk, he fully appreciated the risk and he freely and voluntarily accepted the risk defence fails, as, in the view of the bench, such ordinary care was not exercised.
