Volenti non fit injuria
- The meaning of the above principle is “that to which a man consents cannot be considered an injury”. No act is actionable as a tort at the suit of any person who has expressly or impliedly assented to it; no one can enforce a right which he has voluntarily waived or abandoned.
- The maximum applies to: (1) intentional acts which would otherwise be tortuous; e.g., taking part in a boxing match; (2) running the risk of accidental harm which would otherwise be actionable as negligence; e.g., watching motor racing (Hall v. Brooklands Auto-racing Club  1 K.B. 205).
Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas
Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas. So use your own as not to injure another's property. 1 Bl. Com. 306; Broom's max. 160; 4 McCord, 472; 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 2379.
- Injure non remota causa sed proxima spectator
Injure non remota causa sed proxima spectator means that the direct cause or reason, not the remote cause of an act or omission should be considered.
- Causa Causans and Causa Sine Qua non
Causa causans means an immediate or effective or primary cause. Causa sine qua non means the necessary cause; the cause without which the thing cannot be or the event would not have occurred. The principles mainly relates to negligence, nuisance, defamation or trespass.
Example- “A” pushes “B” and “B” fell on earth and got injured. Here the pushing made by “A” is causa causans and injure caused to “B” is causa sine qua non.
. Re polemis principle
This principle derived from a case decision popularly known as Re Polemis and Furness Withy & Co. (1921) 3 K B 560.
Fact: The fact of the case in brief is that the defendant took lease of a vessel. They were carrying petrol inside cane and tin pot through the vessel. On their way, smoke engulfed the ship, arising out from leakage of tin pot carrying petrol. In a near port the vessel unloading goods with the help of the defendant’s workers/employee. In the course of their action, a piece of wood came near the petrol and fire broke out. The fire engulfed the whole ship and threw it into dust.
Decision: The Appellate Court found the defendant responsible. The Privy Council upheld the judgement. Lord J Atkin followed the principle in Hambrook vs Strokes-1925 1 K B 141.It was held that the lease holder shall pay compensation to the owner of the vessel.