PRINCIPLE A person has no legal remedy for an injury caused by an act to which he has consented FACT...........

Legal Concepts Law of Torts

PRINCIPLE: A person has no legal remedy for an injury caused by an act to which he has consented.

FACTS: R, a cricket enthusiast, purchases a ticket to watch a T20 match organised by the Indian Premier League (IPL). During the match, a ball struck for six hits R on his body and injures him. He sues IPL for compensation for the medical expenses.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

R should be compensated as he purchased the ticket to get entertainment and not get injured.

R would fail in his action, as he voluntarily exposed himself to the risk.

IPL would be liable as it did not ensure that the spectators were protected from the risk of such injuries.

None of the above.

Explanation:

The checks for this is whether his act was one of necessity or one which he could do without – taking the public road to go to the market is an act that you need to do in order to get to the market, and so if a car injures you, in all rational sense, the driver will not get away with it. Going to watch a cricket match is firstly, not a necessity; secondly, the risk of injury was known and foreseeable and when R bought the ticket and sat in the stands to watch the match, he impliedly consents to it.