In which of the following cases the House of Lords held that 'volenti non fit injuria' had no application to harm sustained by a workman from the negligence of his employers in not warning him of the moment of a recurring danger, although the man knew and understood that he personally ran risk of injury if and when the danger did occur.

In Smith v. Baker (1891), the House of Lords held that volenti non fit injuria (voluntary assumption of risk) did not apply to a workman injured by his employer's negligence in not warning him of danger. Even though the workman knew and understood he ran a personal risk, this was not consent to the employer's negligence. The doctrine applies to risks inherent in the work, not to failures to take reasonable care. The employer must still warn of recurring dangers, not just assume knowledge equals consent.