Introduction
This essay examines the application of the legal maxim *volenti non fit injuria*—meaning ‘to a willing person, injury is not done’—in the context of on-duty police officers claiming damages for injuries sustained while knowingly accepting risks inherent to their role. The principle of *volenti* serves as a defence in tort law, suggesting that a person who consents to a risk cannot later claim damages for resulting harm. However, its applicability to police officers, whose profession inherently involves danger, raises complex questions about duty, consent, and public policy. This discussion will explore the scope of *volenti* as a defence, its limitations in the context of emergency services, and relevant case law to assess whether it prevents police officers from claiming damages. The essay aims to provide a balanced analysis of legal principles and their practical implications for those in high-risk public roles.
Understanding Volenti Non Fit Injuria
The maxim *volenti non fit injuria* operates as a complete defence in negligence claims, asserting that a claimant who voluntarily assumes a known risk cannot hold another party liable for resulting harm (Markesinis and Deakin, 2019). For the defence to apply, two key elements must be satisfied: the claimant must have full knowledge of the risk, and they must have freely consented to it. Historically, this principle has been applied in various contexts, such as sports injuries or dangerous activities, where participants are deemed to accept inherent dangers. However, its application becomes contentious when considering professions like policing, where risk is an unavoidable aspect of the job. Indeed, police officers are often compelled by duty to act in hazardous situations, which challenges the notion of free consent.
Application to Police Officers: Consent and Duty
Police officers, by the nature of their role, are expected to confront danger to protect the public. This raises the critical question of whether their acceptance of employment inherently implies consent to all associated risks under *volenti*. In the case of *Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council* [2003] UKHL 47, the House of Lords clarified that *volenti* requires explicit and informed consent to specific risks, rather than a general acceptance of danger. Applied to policing, this suggests that while officers may accept a general level of risk, they do not necessarily consent to every specific hazard encountered on duty. Furthermore, public policy considerations often limit the application of *volenti* in such contexts. Courts have recognised that denying compensation to emergency service workers could disincentivise individuals from entering these vital roles, as noted in academic commentary by Lunney and Oliphant (2017). Therefore, the strict application of *volenti* appears inconsistent with the societal value placed on policing.
Case Law and Exceptions
Key judicial decisions provide insight into how *volenti* intersects with claims by police officers. In *Haynes v Harwood* [1935] 1 KB 146, a police officer injured while attempting to stop a runaway horse was awarded damages, with the court rejecting *volenti* as a defence. The reasoning hinged on the officer’s duty to act in the public interest, negating the idea of voluntary risk assumption. Similarly, in *Ogwo v Taylor* [1988] AC 431, a firefighter injured during a rescue operation successfully claimed damages, with the court emphasising that professional duty overrides personal consent to risk. These cases illustrate a judicial tendency to protect emergency service workers from the full application of *volenti*, acknowledging that their actions, though risky, are often dictated by necessity rather than choice. However, it must be noted that not all claims succeed; where an officer’s injury results from gross negligence or stepping beyond their duty, courts may revisit the applicability of *volenti* (Markesinis and Deakin, 2019).
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the maxim *volenti non fit injuria* provides a theoretical basis for barring claims where risk is voluntarily accepted, its application to on-duty police officers is heavily limited by legal and policy considerations. Case law demonstrates that courts prioritise the societal role and obligatory nature of police work over strict interpretations of consent, often allowing officers to claim damages for injuries sustained in the line of duty. Public policy further supports this stance, recognising the need to compensate those who risk their safety for the public good. Consequently, *volenti* does not generally prevent police officers from claiming damages, though its relevance may persist in exceptional circumstances where voluntary risk-taking exceeds professional duty. This balance ensures that legal principles align with the practical realities of high-risk public service roles.
References
- Lunney, M. and Oliphant, K. (2017) Tort Law: Text and Materials. 6th ed. Oxford University Press.
- Markesinis, B. and Deakin, S. (2019) Tort Law. 8th ed. Clarendon Press.
