Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
While the doctrine of volenti fit non injuria has already been cited
by several decided cases abroad, the same is also true in the
Philippine context. The doctrine has already been cited by the
Supreme Court in several cases, applying it to different facts and
circumstances be it in contracts, dangerous occupations or injury
prone activities. The rule has been
Volenti fit non injuria are of two kinds express waiver of the
right to recover and implied assumptions. In the former, there is
assumption of risk if the plaintiff, in advance has expressly waived
his right to recover damages for the negligent act of the defendant.
In the latter, the dangerous conditions, contractual relations and
dangerous activities belong. Now, we will try to explore one by one
these implied assumptions and how the Supreme Court discussed
broadly and applied the doctrine of volenti fit non injuria.
A. Contracts
3 Timoteo B. Aquino, Torts and Damages (Philippines: Rex Bookstore, 2005), 265-273
On the issue of whether or not the employer can be held liable
for the death of his employee by reason that the latter was on his
job when he was injured/died, the Court disposed that situation in
this matter:
All in all, what the Supreme Court is trying to emphasize in this case
is that the employer is not an insurer of all risks. In other words,
there are those indubitable risks in labor which the employer cannot
insure.
In the present case, the animal was in custody and under the
control of the caretaker, who was paid for his work as such.
Obviously, it was the caretaker's business to try to prevent
the animal from causing injury or damage to anyone,
including himself. And being injured by the animal under
those circumstances, was one of the risks of the occupation
which he had voluntarily assumed and for which he must take
the consequences.
B. Dangerous Occupations
C. Injury-prone activities
2. INELCO v. CA: The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria does not
apply in cases where the victim had every right to be there had
every right to assume the risk.
3. It also does not apply to the so-called risks of labor- risks inherent
in an occupation.