The Doctrine of Assumed Risk

The Doctrine of Assumed Risk: The Assumed Dangers Doctrine states that if an employee is aware of the risks he is accepting while working in a factory, the employer is not liable for damage. In such a situation, the court considered that the worker had freely accepted the dangers associated with his job. The idea arose from the rule Volenti Non-Fit Injuria, which states that a person who voluntarily accepts a risk of harm is not entitled to damages if that risk is realised.

The Doctrine of Common Employment: The Doctrine of Common Employment states that if a group of people work together for a common goal and one of them is damaged as a result of another’s conduct or omission, the employer is not responsible for the injury.

The Doctrine of Assumed Risk

The Doctrine of Contributory Negligence: The Contributory Carelessness Doctrine states that a person is not entitled to damages for an injury if he was responsible for the harm via his own negligence.

The three aforementioned defences, together with the rule of no fault, rendered it almost hard for an employee to receive redress in the event of an accident. The Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1923 marked a significant shift in the law. Regardless of culpability, the employer is required to pay compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act of 1923.

Compensation is treated under the Conduct as a kind of relief for the worker, not as damages due by the employer for a wrongful act or tort. As a result, the employee’s contributory carelessness does not prevent him from receiving compensation. For the same reason, the employer cannot use common employment or accepted risks as a defence to escape culpability. As a result, the Act allows a worker to get compensation for injuries without being hampered by the legal barriers erected by tort law.