Rank: Super forum user 
|
Friend of mine's studying NEBOSH Cert and the trainer's using past questions. One of these features a model answer which includes Volenti as a defence against a civil claim. Not even qualified as 'obsolete' defence.
Might they be being given old, old questions or do NEBOSH still like to see this stuff?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
These things take time:
since the introduction of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, the courts have been less willing to make a finding of volenti
Nobody told me this restriction in 1987, Volenti non fit injuria was the main talking/laughing point during my five week course
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Volenti is a defence if the claimant is not ‘at work’ in the legal sense. In the olden days volenti was assumed to apply to ANY work activity as the employee had volunterred to work for the employee and they had to accept what the job threw at them. That has gone but it could also be a defence if the claimant was volunteering for a particular action for example; a trapeze act slips falls and injures themselves. Volenti would apply in this case as they had volunteered to be a trapeze act and they could only claim for damages if they could establish that the employer was at fault eg poorly maintained trapeze. In practice this is a bit esoteric and unlikely to appear in real life where the employer is in control of most aspects of the job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
No commercial connection/interest with the following link; and cannot vouch for the accuracy of any information it contains; that said I have in the past found it a useful source for info/case studies etc.
http://www.e-lawresource...enti-non-fit-injuria.php
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thanks for all this, folks. articularly smitch for that link.
Well, looks like Volenti is alive and well, albeit sporadically and when there's 17 whiskeys involved.
Funny how time distorts things. My memory was that it had been dropped as a defence. Must have leapt to a conclusion.
Thanks again
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
safetyamateur
You are most welcome
smitch
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
A Kurdziel wrote:Volenti is a defence if the claimant is not ‘at work’ in the legal sense. In the olden days volenti was assumed to apply to ANY work activity as the employee had volunterred to work for the employee and they had to accept what the job threw at them.
In that case would it apply to someone who works for a volunteer organisation and as a volunteer?
Badger
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
'In that case would it apply to someone who works for a volunteer organisation and as a volunteer?'
Badger, probably not. Volenti non fit injuria, hereafter known as volenti, only applies to the civil law and even then has its limitations. Typically the volenti principle applies to non-occupational activities such as sporting events, where there is a recognised degree of risk of their own volition involved in the activity.
A volunteer for a charitable organisation is, for health and safety purposes, normally treated as an employee. Therefore the charity becomes an 'employer' and is liable under health and safety law for the health, safety and welfare of those volunteers.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.