Smith V. Baker 1891 (Case Summary)

This landmark English Case defined the scope of the defense of volenti non fit injuria (to one who consents, no harm is done), emphasizing that mere awareness of a risk does not imply consent to it, thereby protecting employees from unsafe working conditions.

Facts of Smith v Baker 

1. Smith, the plaintiff, was employed to work in a quarry where heavy stones were transported overhead using a crane. Overhead, cranes were used to move heavy rocks, which posed a danger to workers below.
2. Despite being aware of the overhead cranes, Smith was injured when a rock fell from a crane and struck him.
3. A stone fell from the crane, injuring Smith while he was performing his duties.
4. Smith sued his employer, alleging negligence and failure to ensure a safe working environment.

Issues framed

1. Whether mere awareness of a risk constitutes consent under the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria?
2. Whether the employer is liable for failing to provide a safe working environment despite the employee’s knowledge of the risks involved?

Subordinate Court Judgment

The trial court dismissed Smith’s claim, holding that his awareness of the risk implied consent, thereby absolving the employer of liability.

Judgment of Smith v Baker

The case examined the applicability of the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria and the employer’s duty of care under common law.

The court held that an employee’s awareness of a risk does not equate to voluntary acceptance of that risk. It emphasized that workers have the right to expect reasonable safety measures from their employers. The court clarified that consent under volenti must be explicit and voluntary, not coerced or implied from the nature of employment.

The House of Lords ruled in favor of Smith, overturning the lower court’s decision. Lord Halsbury stated, “The mere knowledge of the danger will not do; there must be consent to the risk, freely given.”