The doctrine of Volenti non-fit injuria means, "to a willing person, no injury is done." It means if a person willingly consents to the infliction of harm upon itself he/she is not entitled to get any remedy under the Law of Torts. Any harm suffered voluntarily by anyone does not amount to legal injury, and the same is not actionable by the law of torts. In cases where the plaintiff gives his consent to suffer some harm upon himself in such cases, he is not entitled to remedies, and his consent acts as a good defense for the defendants.

Key elements of the defense:
Knowledge of the risk: The plaintiff must have been aware of the specific risk involved.
Voluntary acceptance of the risk: The plaintiff's consent to the risk must be freely given, not coerced or under duress.
No exceeding the scope of consent: The defendant's actions must not go beyond the scope of the risk the plaintiff accepted.

Limitations:
1.The defense does not apply if the defendant's actions go beyond the scope of the risk the plaintiff assumed.
2.It may not apply if the plaintiff's consent was not freely given.
3.It is not a defense against intentional torts.

Volenti Non-Fit Injuria is a Latin maxim under the law of torts which means "to a willing person, no injury is done." This principle serves as a defence in tort law, stating that if a person knowingly and voluntarily consents to a risk, they cannot later claim damages for any harm resulting from it. For this defence to apply, the consent must be free, informed, and voluntary, and the person must be aware of the nature and extent of the risk involved.

For example, a spectator at a cricket match who gets hit by the ball cannot sue the organizers, as they voluntarily accepted the inherent risk of such an event. However, this defence will not apply in cases of negligence or unlawful acts, such as when safety standards are ignored or consent is obtained through coercion.

Volenti non-fit injuria means "to one who consents, no harm is done." It is a defence in tort law where a person willingly takes a known risk, so they can’t claim damages for injury resulting from it.

The mentioned sentence is a Latin maxim which is popularly used to show the consent of a harmed person in Tort.
It literally means : to one who is willing, no harm is done.
Actually when the person willingly entered in the couse of harmful act, than after he can't claim the compensation for the harm caused to him.
There are many exception for this maxim like rescue cases, statutory duties etc.

In a law of Tort the maxim 'Volenti non fit injuria' which is a latin word means willingness does not make injury.
i.e if someome willingly places itself in a situation where he know that some degree of damage can be possible, he is not alligible to claim any damage if such damage take place.
there is a exception that such damage is not beyond the imagination or not predicted by someone.
if it is beyond the imagination, damage can be claimed by the person.

"Volenti non fit injuria" is a Latin phrase meaning "to a willing person, injury is not done." In simple terms, if someone knowingly and voluntarily takes on a risk, they cannot later claim to have been wronged if harm results from that risk.
This principle helps ensure that individuals take responsibility for their choices, especially when engaging in activities with known risks.

When Does It Apply?

This principle applies when:
1. Knowledge of the Risk: The person is fully aware of the danger involved.
2. Voluntary Consent: The person freely agrees to face the risk without any pressure or deceit.
3. No Defendant's Fault: The harm is not caused by the defendant's intentional wrongdoing or negligence.

When Doesn't It Apply?
There are exceptions where this defence doesn't hold:
1. Coercion or Fraud or Misrepresentation : If the person's consent was obtained through force or deceit.
2. Incapacity: If the person was unable to understand the risk due to age, mental state, or intoxication.
3.Public Policy: If applying this defence goes against public interest or safety.
4.Rescue Situations: If the person was injured while trying to help someone else in danger.
Case Example :
Haynes v. Harwood (1935): A police officer was injured while stopping a runaway horse. The court held that the officer did not voluntarily assume the risk, as he was performing his duty.