Can the defense of Volenti non fit Injuria be applicable to a person whose occupation is not in itself dangerous but suffers injury from an activity carried out in a different department of which he is fully aware but choses to continue to work.
The question which has most frequently to be considered is not whether he voluntarily and rashly exposed himself to injury, but whether he agreed that, if injury should befall him, the risk was to be his and not his masters.
Can the defendant company be held liable for negligence or can they avail the defense of Volenti non fit Injuria?
If persons choose to carry on dangerous operations of such a 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.
Can the defendant be held liable for damages even though the police officer voluntarily went in front of the horses to save the children?
The defense of Volenti non fit Injuria cannot be used in cases where the plaintiff has, under necessity and due to the defendants misconduct intentionally and deliberately faced a risk, even of death, to rescue another from imminent danger even if it his duty to do so.
Whether the search that the defendant's carried out was unreasonable and negligent in nature causing damage to plaintiff?
If a person is exercising their right under a statute they are not liable unless it is proved that they acted unreasonably or negligently.
Did the defendants take sufficient precautions to protect the spectators?
Did the plaintiff consent to risks associated with being a spectator?
One has the duty to take care of things which are reasonably foreseeable but not of things which cannot be foreseen by a reasonable person standard.
Can the defense of Volenti non fit Injuria apply to this case?
Anyone who entered the large area open to public cannot be called as a volunteer to the act, only those who were inside the cordon could have been considered to be a volunteer to the act.
Whose negligence was the real or substantive cause of the accident?
There can be three instances:
(1) The driver of the bus was alone responsible for the accident; (2) the deceased alone was responsible; and (3) both were responsible, as negligence of both substantially caused the accident.
Negligence of both the parties occurred simultaneously so as to make it impossible to say with assurity that either could have avoided the consequence of the others negligence and both parties must be held to have substantially caused the accident.