Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

volenti non fit injuria

Read a random definition: tacit-relocation doctrine

A quick definition of volenti non fit injuria:

Volenti non fit injuria is a fancy way of saying that if someone willingly puts themselves in danger, they can't complain if they get hurt. This means that if you know something is risky and you still choose to do it, you can't blame anyone else if you get hurt. It's like if you decide to climb a tall tree even though you know it's dangerous, you can't sue someone if you fall and get hurt.

A more thorough explanation:

Volenti non fit injuria

Volenti non fit injuria is a legal principle that means "to a willing person, it is not a wrong." This means that if someone willingly puts themselves in a dangerous situation, they cannot sue for any resulting injuries. This principle is the basis for the assumption of the risk doctrine.

For example, if someone decides to go bungee jumping, they are willingly putting themselves in a dangerous situation. If they get injured during the jump, they cannot sue the bungee jumping company for their injuries because they knew the risks and willingly took them.

Another example is if someone decides to play a contact sport like football. If they get injured during the game, they cannot sue the other players or the league because they knew the risks of playing a contact sport and willingly took those risks.

The examples illustrate the principle of volenti non fit injuria because in both cases, the person willingly put themselves in a dangerous situation. They knew the risks and chose to take them anyway. Because of this, they cannot sue for any resulting injuries because they were aware of the risks and chose to take them.

Volcker Rule | Voluntary

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
Ijustwannagetinman
19:21
planning to put down 2 while waiting for more results and scholarship decisions
19:28
I think you can try it
19:28
Until they decline
19:29
Do u think many WL movement will come next week?
19:45
I’d say give it two weeks and we will start to see some WL movement but who can say for sure when it’ll really begin
19:45
Blind leading the blind I think
KnowledgeableRitzyWasp
19:52
Once you deposit you lose a lot of leverage
KnowledgeableRitzyWasp
19:52
It’s still possible but harder
Ijustwannagetinman
19:58
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: even if I can show them a competing offer?
Ijustwannagetinman
19:58
My Georgetown scholarship is still pending but i doubt a decision comes before Wednesday
Ijustwannagetinman
19:59
Also a Stanford A reported from today?
KnowledgeableRitzyWasp
20:07
@Ijustwannagetinman: it’s still possible but you lose leverage because you’ve already given them money so they assume you’re more attached to their school
Attemptingapplications
20:09
SLS A was me. I was accepted last week but made an error when clicking the date. I fixed it.
20:11
Also at that point you won’t get much more too but they may try to make it binding. I’ve seen a few places (not GULC FTR) that give like a 5-10K increase but it is binding
20:11
Also congrats on Stanford!!!
Ijustwannagetinman
20:26
I’m hoping to get off a waitlist and delusional wanna try to get money from that school if I get in lol
Thanks for the R sent to my home, Stanford.
Could have just sent me an email or a status checker update.
Ijustwannagetinman
20:49
@CanWeTalkAboutTerrenceMalick: did ur lawhub ever update
I don't have lawhub. In fairness to Stanford, it may be that my status checker for Stanford has already indicated that I was rejected. I haven't checked since I knew there was next to no chance I would get in. I just don't understand the need to send someone an R admissions decision to their home.
KnowledgeableRitzyWasp
21:02
haha I know i was feral when they sent the R snail mail
KnowledgeableRitzyWasp
21:02
unhinged adcom behavior
I think it's just Stanford reminding you that they have money to waste and still didn't want you. So yeah, unhinged adcom behavior indeed.
@WasabiPirates: By the way, we have the same "goal." I also want to be a federal judge. Well, I would also be happy with one of certain state judgeships. May I ask what you're thinking your ideal career trajectory would be prior to, you hope, landing a federal judgeship? Like, do you want to be in private practice beforehand, government, both?
Anyone still waiting to hear back from NDLS
Ijustwannagetinman
22:24
Ugh I never got a password from Stanford
Ijustwannagetinman
22:24
I wish I knew if they’d rejected me
Ijustwannagetinman
22:24
Already
SymptomaticFoxhound
22:31
wishing everyone lots of As this week
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.