He is not presumed to consent who obeys the orders of his father or his master.

Explanation

(English-origin maxim.) One who acts under the command of a father or master is not presumed to have freely consented to the act — invoke this to defeat an argument that the subordinate ratified or volunteered the conduct in question.

Where this applies

• A teenager follows his father's instruction to drive the family car without a license; the court holds the boy is not presumed to have consented to break the law because he was obeying his father's orders.
• An employee shreds documents on her boss's direct command; when the company is investigated, she argues she should not be treated as having consented to the destruction because she was following her master's orders.
• A farmhand opens a neighbor's gate at his employer's instruction, allowing cattle to escape; the court does not presume the farmhand consented to the trespass because he was simply obeying his master.