Volenti non fit injuriaScienti non fit injuriaHouse of Lords (UK)

Smith v Baker

[1891] Appeal Cases 32518911 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
The plaintiff worked in a quarry where a crane regularly swung stones over his working area. He was aware of this ongoing risk and had continued working despite it.
Issue
Whether an employee's continued work with knowledge of an ongoing workplace hazard constitutes voluntary consent (volenti) to that risk, barring a negligence claim.
Held
Mere knowledge of a risk (scienti) is not the same as voluntary consent to bear that risk (volenti)
Principle
Mere continued work with knowledge of a risk, absent genuine free choice to accept it given economic necessity, does not establish volenti non fit injuria. Scienti (knowledge) is not volenti (consent).

Facts

  • The plaintiff worked in a quarry where a crane regularly swung stones over his working area
  • He was aware of this ongoing risk and had continued working despite it
  • He had no genuine practical alternative to continuing this employment given his economic circumstances
  • A stone fell from the crane and injured him

Issue

  1. Whether an employee's continued work with knowledge of an ongoing workplace hazard constitutes voluntary consent (volenti) to that risk, barring a negligence claim.

Held

  • Mere knowledge of a risk (scienti) is not the same as voluntary consent to bear that risk (volenti)
  • The plaintiff's continued work reflected economic necessity and absence of genuine alternative, not free acceptance of the risk
  • The employer remained liable for negligence in maintaining this hazard
  • Volenti requires genuine, free choice to accept the specific risk, not merely continued exposure under compulsion

Ratio decidendi

Volenti non fit injuria requires both knowledge of a risk and genuine, voluntary acceptance of it. Continued exposure to a known risk, where the plaintiff has no real practical alternative (particularly in employment relationships involving economic dependency), does not satisfy the voluntariness element the defence requires.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • Part A: Leading authority distinguishing scienti (mere knowledge) from volenti (genuine consent), particularly in employment.
  • Part B: Pair with Hall v Brooklands (1933) to contrast: genuine free consent at a sporting event (Hall) vs economic compulsion in employment (Smith).
  • Key line: "Mere continued work with knowledge of a risk, absent genuine free choice, does not establish volenti non fit injuria."

Cite this

Citation

Smith v. Baker [1891] Appeal Cases 325

Reported: [1891] AC 325. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.