The Doctrine of Assumed Risk

The Doctrine of Assumed Risks: If the employee knew the nature of the risks he was undertaking when working in a factory, the employer had no liability for injuries. The court assumed in such case that the workman had voluntarily accepted the risks inci­dental to his work. The doctrine followed from the rule Volenti Non-Fit Injuria, which means that one, who has volunteered to take a risk of injury, is not entitled to damages if injury actually occurs.

The Doctrine of Common Employment: Under this rule, if a number of persons work together for a common purpose and one of them is injured by some act or omission of another, the employer is not liable to pay compensation for the injury.

The Doctrine of Contributory Negligence: Under this rule, a person is not entitled to damages for injury if he was himself guilty of negligence and such negligence resulted to the injury.

The three aforesaid defences and the rule of no negligence no liability made it almost impossible for an employee to obtain relief in cases of accident. The Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1923 completely changed the law. According to the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 the employer is liable to pay compensation irrespective of negligence. The Act considers compensation as relief to the workman and not as damages payable by the employer for a wrongful act or tort. Hence contributory negligence by the employee does not debar him from relief. For the same reason, it is not possible for the employer to plead to the defence of common employment or assumed risks for avoiding liability. Thus, the Act makes it possible for the workman to get compensation for injuries, unhindered by the legal obstacles set up by the law of Torts.