GENERAL DEFENSES TO

AN ACTION IN TORT
 WHAT ARE GENERAL
DEFENCES IN TORT
WHEN A PLAINTIFF BRINGS AN ACTION AGAINST
THE DEFENDANT FOR A TORT COMMITTED BY
HIM, HE WILL BE HELD LIABLE FOR IT, IF THERE
EXIST ALL THE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS WHICH
ARE REQUIRED FOR THAT WRONG. BUT THERE
ARE SOME DEFENCES AVAILABLE TO HIM USING
WHICH HE CAN ABSOLVE HIMSELF FROM THE
LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF THE WRONG
COMMITTED. THESE ARE KNOWN AS ‘GENERAL
DEFENCES’ IN THE LAW OF TORT.
GENERAL DEFENCES

VOLANTI NON FIT INJURIAI

MISTAKE
ACT OF GOD
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
PLAINTIFF THE WRONGDOER
PRIVATE DIFENCE
NECESSITY
INEVITABLE ACCIDENT
 VOLENTI NON FIT
INJURIA
In volenti non fit injuria, if a plaintiff has consented
to a risk or danger with free content, either express
or implied, under no pressure of fraud or coercion,
then he has no right to sue the defendant. Also, there
should be a duty on behalf of others. In other words,
when a person consents to the infliction of some
harm upon himself, it does not constitute a legal
injury and, therefore, is not actionable.
Essentials
Consent must be free;
Consent cannot be given to an illegal act;
Knowledge of risk is not the same thing as consent to
run the risk.
 EXAMPLE AND CASE
LAW
WHEN YOU YOURSELF CALL SOMEBODY TO YOUR HOUSE YOU
CANNOT SUE YOUR GUESTS FOR TRESPASS
example
IF YOU HAVE AGREED TO A SURGICAL OPERATION THEN YOU
CANNOT SUE THE SURGEON FOR IT

In Padmavati v. Dugganaika[2], the driver of the jeep took

the jeep to fill petrol in it. Two strangers took a lift in the
case law
jeep. The jeep got toppled due to some problem in the
right wheel. The two strangers who took lift were thrown
out of the jeep and they suffered some injuries leading to
the death of one person.
 MISTAKE
There are two types of mistakes which a normal person can do according to
tort:
Mistake of Law
Mistake of Facts
In general, the mistake of law is no defence to the violation of the law. It is
presumed that all people know and understand the law of the land, except
minors, lunatics or insane. There are few other rare exceptions to this rule.
A mistake of fact can be an exception in reducing or eliminating the liability
of the person. A person cannot escape his liability for intentional mistakes.
A criminal defendant can argue that he/she never intended to commit the
crime. The criminal act that occurred as a result of the mistake of fact as
per the situation demands or misunderstanding. Such exception is only
allowed when there is a mistake of fact, but the mistake of law is not
considered as a defence.
 ILLUSTRATION
A takes his Labrador to the park every day so that he can
play off leash with other dogs. One day, A lost sight of his
dog for a few minutes. Well, he relocated the dog and
walked towards the home. At home, he noticed a mark on
the dog and came to the conclusion that it is not his dog,
he mistakenly took another person’s dog with him. Here, A
will not be liable because he gets the defence of mistake of
facts.
ACT OF GOD
The defence of Act of God and Inevitable
accident might look the same but they are
different. Act of God is a kind of inevitable
accident in which the natural forces play
their role and causes damage. For example,
heavy rainfall, storms, tides, etc.
Essentials required for this defence are:
Natural forces’ working should be there.
There must be an extraordinary occurrence
and not the one which could be anticipated
and guarded against reasonably.
Occurrence must be extraordinary
Some extraordinary occurrence of natural
forces is required to plead the defence under
the law of torts.
 CASE LAW
In Kallu Lal v. Hemchand[31], the wall of a building collapsed
due to normal rainfall of about 2.66 inches. The incident
resulted in the death of the respondent’s children. The
court held that the defence of Act of God cannot be
pleaded by the appellants in this case as that much rainfall
was normal and something extraordinary is required to
plead this defence. The appellant was held liable.
 STATUTORY
AUTHORITY
If an act is authorized by any act or statute, then it is
not actionable even if it would constitute a tort
otherwise. It is a complete defence and the injured
party has no remedy except for claiming compensation
as may have been provided by the statute.

Immunity under statutory authority is not given only

for the harm which is obvious but also for the harm
which is incidental.
 CASE LAW
In Hammer Smith Rail Co. v. Brand[42], the value
of the property of the plaintiff depreciated due
to the loud noise and vibrations produced from
the running trains on the railway line which was
constructed under a statutory provision. The
court held that nothing can be claimed for the
damage suffered as it was done as per the
statutory provisions and if something is
authorized by any statute or legislature then it
serves as a complete defence. The defendant
was held not liable in the case.
 PLAINTIFF THE
WRONGDOER

When a plaintiff himself is the wrongdoer

It is based on the maxim ex turpi causa that if the plaintiff
himself is engaged in the wrongful act or conduct, then he
cannot recover damages.
But if a defendant asserts that claimant himself is the
wrongdoer and not entitled to the damages, then it does
not mean that the court will declare him free from the
liability.
CASE LAW
In Pitts v. Hunt[19], there was a rider who
was 18 years of age. He encouraged his
friend who was 16 years old to drive fast
under drunken conditions. But their
motorcycle met with an accident, the
driver died on the spot. The pillion rider
suffered serious injuries and filed a suit for
claiming compensation from the relatives
of the deceased person. This plea was
rejected as he himself was the wrongdoer
in this case.
PRIVATE DEFENSE
The law has given permission to
protect one’s life and property
and for that, it has allowed the
use of reasonable force to protect
himself and his property.
The use of force is justified only
for the purpose of self-defence.
There should be an imminent
threat to a person’s life or
property.
 EXAMPLE AND CASE
LAW
A WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN USING FORCE AGAINST B JUST BECAUSE HE
BELIEVES THAT SOMEDAY HE WILL BE ATTACKED BY B.
THE FORCE USED MUST BE REASONABLE AND TO REPEL AN IMMINENT DANGER.
example FOR EXAMPLE, IF A TRIED TO COMMIT A ROBBERY IN THE HOUSE OF B AND B JUST
DRAW HIS SWORD AND CHOPPED HIS HEAD, THEN THIS ACT OF A WOULD NOT BE
JUSTIFIED AND THE DEFENCE OF PRIVATE DEFENCE CANNOT BE PLEADED.

In Collins v. Renison[34], the plaintiff went up a ladder for

nailing a board on a wall in the defendant’s garden. The
case law
defendant threw him off the ladder and when sued he said
that he just gently pushed him off the ladder and nothing
else. It was held that the force used was not justifiable as
the defence.o the death of one person.
 NECESSITY

Necessity knows no law.’ In order to avoid or prevent a

great loss or harm,
a defendant can cause lesser harm that
is justified. The act
of the defendant may be not legal but if
it is to avoid major
damage then he can plead this defence.
Essentials
When the defendant acts to avoid a significant risk of harm.
His causing of harm should be justified.
CASE LAW
In Cope v. Sharpe[38], the
defendant entered the plaintiff’s
premises to stop the spread of fire
in the adjoining land where the
defendant’s master had the
shooting rights. Since the
defendant’s act was to prevent
greater harm so he was held not
liable for trespass.
INEVITABLE ACCIDENT
Accident means an unexpected
injury and if the same accident
could not have been stopped or
avoided despite taking all due care
and precautions on the part of the
defendant, then we call it an
inevitable accident. It serves as a
good defence as the defendant
could show that the injury could not
be stopped even after taking all the
precautions and there was no intent
to harm the plaintiff.
 CASE LAW
In Stanley v. Powell[20], the defendant and the
plaintiff went to a pheasant shooting. The defendant
fired at a pheasant but the bullet after getting
reflected by an oak tree hit the plaintiff and he
suffered serious injuries. The incident was considered
an inevitable accident and the defendant was not
liable in this case.
 धन्यवाद

Presented by - Chaitya , Aranya, Aditri

AND Deepanshu