South Indian Industrial Ltd., Madras v. Alamelu Ammal AIR 1923 Mad. 565

Quick Summary

The company used a heavy weight to break cast iron. Pieces flew far and struck a worker standing at a distance. The Court said: in dangerous operations, employers must use ordinary care, caution, and skill to prevent harm. The defense of Volenti non fit Injuria failed because the deceased did not know about the far-flying risk.

Issues

• Is the company liable in negligence for failing to prevent flying fragments?
• Can the company avoid liability using Volenti non fit Injuria (voluntary assumption of risk)?

Rules

• Those who run dangerous processes owe a duty of ordinary care to the public and to their workers.
• Volenti applies only where the person had real knowledge of the specific risk and accepted it.

Arguments

Judgment

The Madras High Court held for the plaintiff. The company did not take adequate precautions for a known dangerous operation. Volenti failed because the deceased could not have consented to a risk he did not know or understand.

Ratio Decidendi

Consent requires knowledge. In hazardous industrial work, employers must anticipate foreseeable spread of harm (like flying fragments) and adopt precautions proportionate to that risk.

Why It Matters

• Clarifies limits of Volenti for workers in risky environments.
• Sets a clear duty of care for dangerous industrial methods.
• Highlights the need for risk mapping and effective warnings.

Key Takeaways

• High-risk processes need adequate safeguards and clear warnings.
• Volenti fails without informed consent to the specific danger.
• Employers must consider the full range of foreseeable harm (distance, force, direction).

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Know → Warn → Wall.”

1. Know: Identify how far danger can travel.
2. Warn: Tell all who could be hit—not just nearby workers.
3. Wall: Create buffers—guards, shields, safe distances.

IRAC

Issue: Is the company negligent and can it rely on Volenti non fit Injuria?

Rule: Operators of dangerous processes must use ordinary care; Volenti needs knowledge + consent to the specific risk.

Application: Flying pieces were foreseeable beyond the immediate pit; warnings and barriers were inadequate; the deceased had no knowledge of far-range risk.

Conclusion: Company is liable in negligence; Volenti does not apply.

Glossary

Volenti non fit Injuria

No injury is done to one who consents—requires knowledge and acceptance of the risk.

Foreseeability

What risks a reasonable person would anticipate and plan for.

Ordinary Care

Practical precautions a reasonable operator would take in the circumstances.

FAQs

Related Cases