T.C. Balakrishnan Menon v. T.R. Subramanian
Easy English case explainer — short, clean, classroom style.
Quick Summary
During the Thrissur Pooram festival, a minnal gundu explosive fell into the crowd and injured a minor. The court said the crowd was not “volunteers” to that off-cordon risk. The contractor’s poor securing of the tube caused the accident. Volenti did not defeat the claim.
Issues
- Can the defendants rely on volenti non fit injuria against people in a large public ground?
Rules
- People present in a large public area are not automatically “volunteers.” Only those inside the safety cordon for the risky act may be treated as consenting to that specific risk.
| Citation | AIR 1968 Ker 151 |
| Court | Kerala High Court |
| Area of Law | Torts — Defences; Negligence; Public Safety |
Facts (Timeline)
Festival: Thrissur Pooram (April 1959) used celebratory explosives called minnal gundu.
Device: A coconut shell filled with explosive, placed in a bamboo tube tied to an iron peg; gunpowder below ejects it skyward to explode.
Mishap: Instead of rising, one device fell into the crowd and exploded, injuring a minor.
Fault: Courts found the independent contractor (20th defendant) failed to secure the tube properly.
Suit: The injured minor’s father sued for damages; issue of volenti was raised.
Arguments
Appellant (Plaintiff)
- Crowd outside the cordon did not consent to danger.
- Contractor’s negligence caused the accident.
- Public attendance ≠ acceptance of off-route blast risk.
Respondent (Defendant)
- People came to watch fireworks; risk was obvious.
- Therefore, volenti should bar recovery.
Judgment
Judgment for the plaintiffs as to the defence: the High Court upheld that volenti non fit injuria does not apply to members of the public on a large ground outside the risk cordon. The contractor’s negligence remained actionable.
Ratio Decidendi
Implied consent is confined to the controlled risk area. Outside that area, spectators do not assume the risk of negligent mishaps. Where negligence is proved, volenti fails.
Why It Matters
- Clarifies limits of volenti for public events in India.
- Emphasises organiser/contractor duties for crowd safety.
- Helpful for exams on defences and public policy.
Key Takeaways
- Volenti is narrow: only within the cordoned risk zone.
- Negligence stands: poor securing of devices leads to liability.
- Crowd safety: public spectators are protected from off-route hazards.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
POORAM = Public ground, Outside cordon, Organiser/contractor negligent, Risk not consented, Action lies, Minnal gundu mishap.
- Locate the risk area (inside vs outside cordon).
- Ask if consent can be implied for that area.
- Decide negligence → volenti fails for public spectators.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Does volenti non fit injuria bar recovery for a crowd injury at a public festival?
Rule
Only those inside the cordon for the risky act may be treated as consenting; others are not volunteers.
Application
Minor was in a large public area, outside the cordon; tube was negligently unsecured; device fell into the crowd.
Conclusion
Volenti does not apply; negligence is actionable; defence fails.
Glossary
- Volenti non fit injuria
- “To a willing person, no injury is done” — defence based on free and informed consent to risk.
- Cordon
- A controlled zone used to separate spectators from risk areas.
- Independent Contractor
- A non-employee hired to perform a task; can be liable for negligent work.
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now