Define That Term #207

The most recent term was irresistible impulse test, which is defined as:

A seldom-used test for criminal insanity that labels the person insane if he could not control his actions when committing the crime, even though he knew his actions were wrong.

No one guessed this time around.

Today's term is:

volenti non fit injuria.

As always, no dictionaries, please.

Comments

[John Halton]

I'm not a tort lawyer, so I'm dredging up recollections from law school over a decade ago, but isn't this the one about voluntarily accepting the risk of injury?

So a defendant to a claim of negligence has a defence if the plaintiff was "volens" as to the risk - i.e. had behaved so recklessly as to have brought their misfortune upon themselves, even if the defendant might ordinarily have been liable for negligence. A sort of souped-up version of contributory negligence.

I heard of one case here in England (unreported, the barrister was a friend-of-a-friend) where a lorry driver who went through a red light and hit a cyclist was held not to be liable because the lorry driver's barrister persuaded the judge that riding a bicycle through Manchester city centre was so recklessly foolhardy that the cyclist was "volens" as to the risk...