AREA: Essential Conditions for Application for Volenti Non-fit Injuria.
FACTS:
That the defendants for their own business used a method of breaking up cast iron which consisted of dropping a heavy weight 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 flow to distances of four or five yards from the pit.
On one fateful day, a piece of iron hit and killed the workman. It was pleaded that human foresight and skill could not have discovered that pieces of iron would go to a distance of 70 to 90 feet at which the deceased was standing at the time of the accident.
ISSUE:
Whether knowledge of danger is sufficient? Would negligence on the part of the employer defeat the defense of volenti non-fit injuria?
JUDGMENT:
That is the defense that is expressed in the maxim volenti non-fit injuria; to succeed, the other party must prove that the person injured knew of the danger, appreciated it, and voluntarily took the risk. There is no evidence of any of these three things.
If the 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 to prevent the happening of the event.
They knew that these pieces were being thrown out of the pit. They put up a screen that was so inadequate. They did not trouble themselves to issue warning to persons at a distance, but chose to allow their workmen at a distance, to go on working at the risk of being hit.
It is suggested that human foresight and skill could not have discovered that pieces of iron would go to a distance of some 70 to 90 feet, at which the deceased was standing at the time of the accident.
Hence, the defendants were guilty of negligence.
Comments