Қабылдаған қауіптің зардаптарынан шағымдануға құқық жоқ принципі

Common law doctrine

Volenti non fit iniuria (or injuria) (Latin: "to a willing person, injury is not done") is a Roman legal maxim and common law doctrine which states that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party in tort or delict. Volenti applies only to the risk which a reasonable person would consider them as having assumed by their actions; thus a boxer consents to being hit, and to the injuries that might be expected from being hit, but does not consent to (for example) his opponent striking him with an iron bar, or punching him outside the usual terms of boxing. Volenti is also known as a "voluntary assumption of risk". Volenti is sometimes described as the plaintiff "consenting to run a risk". In this context, volenti can be distinguished from legal consent in that the latter can prevent some torts arising in the first place. For example, consent to a medical procedure prevents the procedure from being a trespass to the person, or consenting to a person visiting one's land prevents them from being a trespasser.

Volenti non fit injuria is an often quoted form of the legal maxim formulated by the Roman jurist Ulpian which reads in original: Nulla iniuria est, quæ in volentem fiat.

The Scots law of delict similarly recognises the principle and defence of volenti non fit injuria. US tort law has a similar but more complex legal principle known as assumption of risk. US law recognizes at least two major overlapping dichotomies between different kinds of assumption of risk (primary v. secondary, express v. implied). In Canada, the "volentio" principles applies in much the same way as under English law. The leading Canadian cases on point are Dube v. Labar, [1986] 1 SCR 649 and Hall v. Hebert, [1993] 2 SCR 159.

The defence of volenti is now excluded by statute where a passenger was injured as a result of agreeing to take a lift from a drunk car driver. However, in a well known case of Morris v Murray [1990] 3 All ER 801 (Court of Appeal), volenti was held to apply to a drunk passenger, who accepted a lift from a drunk pilot. The pilot died in the resulting crash and the passenger who was injured, sued his estate. Although he drove the pilot to the airfield (which was closed at the time) and helped him start the engine and tune the radio, he argued that he did not freely and voluntarily consent to the risk involved in flying. The Court of Appeal held that there was consent: the passenger was not so drunk as to fail to realise the risks of taking a lift from a drunk pilot, and his actions leading up to the flight demonstrated that he voluntarily accepted those risks. In New Zealand, in the case of Walker v Watson [1974] 2 NZLR 175 (High Court), volenti was held to apply to a situation where a car owner lent his car to someone who he knew was heavily intoxicated. The car ended up crashing into a wall, and the owner sued the driver for damages. The High Court held that the owner had voluntarily lent his car to a person who presented an obvious danger to his property, and therefore the owner was taken to have accepted the risk of damage to his car arising from drunk driving and had impliedly undertaken to bear any losses that arise.