General Defences in Tort Law

Detailed Presentation on General Defences under Law of Torts

Made By:
Edited By: Ayush Patria, Sangam University, Bhilwara

Follow us on Instagram: @law_laboratory
Website: www.lawlaboratory.in

1. GENERAL DEFEN C ES IN TORT

2. INTRODUCTION Various conditions which protect the act from being wrongful which in their absence would be wrong. Sir Fredrick Pollock stated that “ The rules of immunity which restrict the rules of liability” Under such situation the act is said to be justified.

3. Acts of State Executive Acts Private Defense Plaintiff A Wrongdoer Authority of Necessity GENERAL DEFENSES 6. Mistake of Fact 7. Exercise of Common Rights 8. Necessity 9. Quasi-judicial Acts

4. 10. Acts Done Under Parental or Quasi Parental Authority 11. Judicial Acts 12. Acts Done under Statutory Authority 13. Volenti Non Fit Injuria 14. Inevitable Accidents 15. Acts Causing Slight Harm

5. ACT OF STATE The Act of State is an Injury done against an alien. By a servant of the crown Act is previously authorized approve by the sovereign which done under state policy is not cognizable by any municipal court.

6. CASE: Buron v. Denman (1848) 2 Ex. 167 If a servant of the Crown commits a wrongful act against an alien, and the Crown authorized such act, or subsequently ratifies it, it is an act of State and no action will lie in respect of it against such servant.

7. The defendant, a British naval commander, in execution of a treaty concluded with the King of the Gallinas, fired the premises of the plaintiff, a Spaniard, and liberated his slaves. The English Government adopted and ratified the act. Held, the defendant was not liable.

8. GOVERNMENT CAN BE MADE LIABLE EVEN THOUGH THE ACT IS AN ACT OF THE STATE WHEN - Trespass to immovable property. An obligation inflict by a statute. Some benefit has evolve to the Government.

9. JUDICIAL ACTS PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC BENEFIT- Suit will come against a judge for any act done or words spoken in his judicial capacity. Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850

10. CASE: Anderson v. Gorrie (1 895 ) 1 Q. B. 668 A judge acted exacting to the prejudice of the plaintiff and committed the plaintiff for contempt of court and asked for excessive bail.

11. QUASI - JUDICIAL ACTS Protected from civil liability if they observe Principles of Natural Justice, the particular Statutory Rule.

12. CASE : Devchand v. Ghanash y am (1935) 37 B.L R. 417 The cast had the jurisdiction to excommunicate the members and the court would not interfere in the matter.

13. EXECUTIVE ACTS Valid orders of a public power form a good defense to a tort. But if an officer maliciously arrests a person or takes his commodities he will be liable. Do not enjoy any protection except that consult by legislature enactments.

14. ACTS DONE UNDER PARENTIAL OR QUASI PARENTAL AUTHORITY Parents or persons in loco parentis may, for the purpose of correcting what is bad in the child, inflict corporal punishment, extent of which is reasonable.

15. CASE- Rex v. New p ort Justices, (1929) 2 K.B. 416 The schoolmaster has power to punish students for their mistake.

16. AUTHORITY OF NECESSITIY The master of a ship on the high seas or in foreign port has power not only over the crew, but on the passengers also. Such majority are based upon necessity. Powers are restricted to preservation of necessary discipline and the safety. EXAMPLE - Commander of an aircraft has similar powers jurisdiction of necessity.

17. NECESSITY Salus p opuli est suprema lex : The welfare of the people is the supreme authority. ILLUSTRATION- Suppose a fire originates in A’s house through some unknown defect in electrical installations. In extinguishing the fire B’s adjoining property is damaged by

18. water. B brings action against A, claiming damages for the damage done to his property. B cannot succeed , since A was acting under complete necessity.

19. ACTS DONE UNDER STATUTORY AUTHORITY A person injured by such jurisdiction act can have no remedy, except for one provided by the statute. CASE: Ram Gopal v. Govt. of U.P (1951) 1 All. 135 : The govt. was not held liable a the claimed tortious act was performed in discharge of an restriction imposed by law .

20. Exercise of Common Rights: The exercise of ordinary rights for a lawful need in a lawful manner is no wrong even if it causes damage Was case of - “ Damnum sine injuria ”.

21. VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA (The plaintiff cannot complain about the act if an act is done with) Consent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has voluntarily with complete knowledge of the nature of the risk, agreed to an act.

22. CASE : Hall v. Brooklands Auto-Racing Club : A racing car shot over the railing and killed two spectators. It was held that there was no negligence and that this type of danger is inherent in car racing.

23. APPLICATIONS Intentional acts which would otherwise be tortuous. Consent to run the risk of accidental harm, which would otherwise be actionable as due to negligence of the person who caused it.

24. INEVITABLE ACCIDENTS (ACT OF GOD) [An accident which is physically unavoidable] Inevitable accidents may be caused by - Factors beyond the control of man, vis major. Factors which are within human control.

25. CASE : Holmes v. Mather (1 875) L.R 10 Ex. 261 (Runaway horses Case): It was held that no action was maintainable by the plaintiff as servant had done his best under the situation to control horse.

26. MISTAKE OF FACT 1. Not an excuse, except in the cases where motive is an essential ingredient constituting the wrong. CASE - Consolidated Company v. Curtis & Sons (1892) 1 Q. B. 425 Mistake of fact was no reason for trespassing with the plaintiff’s property so wrongfully sold and delivery.

27. PRIVATE DEFENCE CASE - Turner v. Jagmohan Singh A vicious horse continued to attack a pair of female horse of the carriage in which the defendant was riding even after several attempts of the defendant to calm it. The defendant got hold of a inflicted a wound on it which resulted in it’s death. Held, the defendant’s act was valid.

28. PLAINTIFF A WRONGDOER Ex turpi causa non oritur actio : No action arises from an immoral cause A person cannot ask for damages for an accident where he himself was negligent in his driving or in violation of the rules of the road

29. CASE : Stockdale v. Onwhyn , 5 B & C, 173 The author of a copyrighted book which is banned as indecent cannot maintain an action against a person who has pirated a version of the book.

30. De minimus non curat lex Nothing is a wrong of which a person of ordinary sense and temper would not complain- SECTION 59 OF IPC . ACTS CAUSING SLIGHT HARM

31. CASE - Coward v. Baddele y , (1859) 4 H&N 478 In this case, B touched the plaintiff, a fireman, on his arm to draw his attention to another part of the fire. Held that B was not liable for battery in those circumstances.