General Defences under Tort

Introduction

The topic of general defences in tort law typically outlines the fundamental principles that allow defendants to avoid liability for harm caused to plaintiffs under certain circumstances. General defences serve as a means for defendants to argue that, despite the occurrence of a tortious act, they should not be held legally responsible due to specific conditions or justifications. A fundamental component of the legal system, tort law attempts to rectify civil wrongs and offer compensation to those who have been harmed by the deeds or negligence of others. These legal arguments can absolve a defendant from liability in tort cases, even if the plaintiff can prove that a tort occurred.

Meaning of General Defence

In tort law, a general defence refers to a legal argument that a defendant can use to avoid liability for a tortious act, even if the plaintiff has successfully established that a tort occurred. These defences are based on specific principles that justify the defendant’s actions or dispute the plaintiff’s claims. The purpose of these defences is to balance the interests of justice, ensuring that individuals are not unfairly penalized for actions taken under certain conditions, such as consent, necessity, or self-defence.

General Defences in Law of Torts

The defences available in torts are given as follows:

1. Volenti non fit injuria
2. The wrongdoer is the plaintiff
3. Inevitable accident
4. Act of God
5. Private Defence
6. Mistake
7. Necessity
8. Statutory authority

1. Volenti non fit Injuria

• It is a legal principle in tort law that translates to “to a willing person, injury is not done.”
• This defence asserts that if a plaintiff voluntarily consents to the risk of harm, they cannot claim damages for any injury that results from that risk. It means that if a person willingly engages in an activity that carries inherent risks, they cannot later seek compensation for injuries sustained as a result of those risks.
• In the case of Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club^[1], The court found that the plaintiff had knowingly assumed the risk of attending the race, as he was aware of the dangers associated with such events. The court held that the defence of volenti non fit injuria applied because the plaintiff had voluntarily accepted the risks involved in attending the car race. As a result, he could not claim damages for the injuries sustained during the event. This case illustrates how the principle of volenti non fit injuria operates in practice, emphasizing the importance of voluntary consent and awareness of risk in tort law.

Essentials

1. Voluntary Consent: The plaintiff must have voluntarily agreed to participate in the activity that led to the injury.
2. Knowledge of Risk: The plaintiff must have been aware of the nature and extent of the risk involved in the activity.
3. Acceptance of Risk: The plaintiff must have accepted the risk, either explicitly or implicitly, through their actions.

2. The wrongdoer is the plaintiff

• The principle that “the wrongdoer is the plaintiff” refers to a legal defence in tort law where a defendant argues that the plaintiff cannot recover damages because they were engaged in wrongful or illegal conduct at the time of the injury.
• This is often summaries by the maxim “Ex turpi causa non oritur actio,” which means “from a dishonorable cause, an action does not arise.”
• If the plaintiff’s claim arises from their own illegal act, they may be barred from recovering damages.
• In the case of Gray v. Thames Trains Ltd^[2]., the plaintiff was involved in a train accident caused by the defendant’s negligence. The House of Lords held that the plaintiff could not recover damages for his injuries because his claim was founded on his own illegal conduct. The court emphasized that allowing recovery in such circumstances would be contrary to public policy, as it would effectively reward the plaintiff for his wrongdoing. This case exemplifies the principle that a plaintiff engaged in wrongful conduct may be barred from recovering damages, reinforcing the idea that the legal system should not assist those seeking to benefit from their own illegal actions. 

Essentials

1. Plaintiff’s Wrongdoing: The plaintiff must have engaged in illegal or immoral conduct that is directly related to the claim.
2. Connection to the Claim: The plaintiff’s wrongdoing must be sufficiently connected to the harm suffered, meaning the injury must arise from the illegal act.
3. Public Policy Considerations: Courts may refuse to assist a plaintiff in recovering damages if doing so would be contrary to public policy.

3. Inevitable accident

• It is a legal defence in the law of Tort that applies when an injury occurs due to an unforeseen event that could not have been prevented by the defendant, despite exercising reasonable care.
• This defence asserts that the harm was not due to any negligence or wrongful act on the part of the defendant but rather the result of an accident that was unavoidable.
• In the case of Stanley v. Powell^[3], both the plaintiff and the defendant were participating in a pheasant shooting event. The court held that the defendant was not liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. It was determined that the incident was an inevitable accident, as the ricochet was an unforeseen event that could not have been anticipated or prevented by the defendant. The court emphasized that the defendant had acted with reasonable care while participating in the shooting event. This case illustrates the application of the inevitable accident defence, highlighting that a defendant may not be held liable for injuries resulting from accidents that occur despite the exercise of reasonable care and are beyond their control.

Essentials

1. Unforeseeability: The accident must be an event that could not have been anticipated or foreseen by the defendant.
2. Reasonable Care: The defendant must have taken all reasonable precautions to prevent the accident from occurring.
3. No Negligence: The injury must not be a result of any negligent act by the defendant.

4. Act of God

• It is a legal defence in tort law that refers to natural events or disasters that are beyond human control and cannot be prevented by any amount of foresight or care.
• This defence is used to argue that the defendant should not be held liable for damages caused by such natural events.
• In the case of Kallu Lal v. Hemchand^[4], the plaintiffs were the parents of children who died when a wall collapsed due to heavy rainfall. The court held that the defence of Act of God was not applicable in this case. The amount of rainfall was not extraordinary, and the defendants were found liable for the collapse of the wall. The court emphasized that the defendants had a duty to ensure the safety of their property and could have taken reasonable precautions to prevent the collapse. This case illustrates that while the Act of God defence can be invoked in tort cases, it is only applicable when the natural event is extraordinary and truly beyond human control.

Essentials

1. Natural Event: The event must be a natural occurrence, such as floods, earthquakes, storms, or other extreme weather conditions.
2. Unpreventable: The harm caused by the event must be unavoidable, meaning that the defendant could not have taken any reasonable steps to prevent the damage.
3. Extraordinary Nature: The event must be extraordinary and not something that could be reasonably anticipated or prepared for.

5. Private defence

• It is a legal principle that allows an individual to use reasonable force to protect themselves or others from imminent harm.
• This defence is applicable in tort law when a defendant claims that their actions were necessary to prevent harm to themselves or another person.
• In the case of Bird v. Holbrook^[5], the defendant set up spring guns in his garden to protect his property from trespassers. The court held that the defence of private defence was not applicable in this case. The defendant was found liable for the injuries caused to the plaintiff because he had failed to provide any warning about the spring guns. The court emphasized that while a property owner has the right to protect their property, they must do so in a manner that is reasonable and does not endanger others without warning. This case illustrates the limitations of the private defence principle, highlighting that the use of force must be reasonable and that property owners cannot use excessive or dangerous means to protect their property without proper notice. 

Essentials

1. Imminent Threat: There must be an immediate threat of harm to the defendant or another person.
2. Reasonable Force: The force used in self-defence must be proportionate and reasonable in relation to the threat faced.
3. Necessity: The defendant must have acted out of necessity to prevent harm, and there should be no reasonable alternative to using force.

6. Mistake

• In tort law, it refers to a situation where a defendant claims that they should not be held liable for a tort because they acted under a misunderstanding of the facts or the law.
• Mistakes can be classified into two categories: mistakes of fact and mistakes of law. Generally, mistakes of fact may provide a defence, while mistakes of law do not.
• In the case of Consolidated Co. v. Curtis^[6], the defendant was an auctioneer who sold goods, believing them to belong to his customer. The court held the auctioneer liable for the tort of conversion, stating that the defence of mistake was not applicable in this case. The court emphasized that the auctioneer’s honest belief did not absolve him of liability, as he had a duty to ensure that the goods he was selling belonged to the seller. The court ruled that the mistake of fact did not provide a valid defence in this instance. This case illustrates that while a mistake may be considered in tort law, it does not automatically exempt a defendant from liability, especially if they have a duty to verify the facts before acting.

Essentials 

1. Honest Mistake: The defendant must have made an honest mistake, believing in the truth of the facts as they understood them.
2. Good Faith: The mistake must have been made in good faith, without any intention to deceive or cause harm.
3. Not Intentional: The mistake should not be intentional or reckless.

7. Necessity 

• It is legal defences in tort law that allows a defendant to justify their actions that may otherwise be considered wrongful, provided those actions were taken to prevent greater harm or injury.
• This defence is applicable when the defendant’s conduct was necessary to divert a significant risk of harm.
• In the case of Cope v. Sharpe^[7], the defendant entered the plaintiff’s property without permission to prevent a fire from spreading to an adjoining land where his master held shooting rights. The court held that the defence of necessity was applicable in this case. The defendant was not held liable for trespass because his actions were deemed necessary to prevent a more significant harm (the spread of fire). The court recognized that the defendant acted reasonably under the circumstances to protect both his property and that of others. This case illustrates the application of the necessity defence, emphasizing that actions taken to prevent greater harm can be justified in tort law, provided they are reasonable and necessary under the circumstances.

Essentials

1. Preventing Greater Harm: The defendant must demonstrate that their actions were necessary to prevent a more significant harm or injury.
2. Justification: The harm caused by the defendant’s actions must be justified in light of the circumstances.
3. Reasonableness: The actions taken must be reasonable and proportionate to the threat faced.

8. Statutory Authority

• It is a legal defence in tort law that protects individuals or entities from liability when they act under the authority of a statute or legislative provision.
• This defence is based on the principle that actions taken in compliance with the law should not result in liability for any harm or injury caused.
• In the case of Hammersmith Rail Co. v. Brand^[8], the plaintiff’s property value decreased due to the noise and vibrations produced by trains running on a railway line constructed under a statutory provision. The plaintiff sued the railway company for damages, claiming that the operations were causing harm to his property. The court ruled in favor of the railway company, granting the defence of statutory authority. The court held that the railway company could not be held liable for damages because their operations were authorized by statute, and they had taken reasonable care in conducting their activities. The court emphasized that legislative authorization provided a sufficient justification for the actions taken, even if they resulted in some harm to the plaintiff. This case illustrates the application of the statutory authority defence, highlighting that individuals or entities acting within the scope of their statutory powers are generally protected from liability for any resulting harm, provided they comply with the law and exercise reasonable care.

Essentials  

1. Acting under Statutory Authority: The defendant must demonstrate that their actions were performed under the authority of a statute.
2. Permitted by Law: The actions taken must be permitted by law, meaning they were authorized by the relevant legislation.
3. Compliance with Procedures: The defendant must have complied with any applicable procedures or regulations associated with the statutory authority.

Conclusion

The general defences in tort law are essential for balancing the rights and responsibilities of individuals. They ensure that liability is assigned fairly, taking into account the intentions, circumstances, and legal frameworks governing the actions in question. Understanding these defences is vital for both plaintiffs and defendants in navigating tort litigation effectively.

^[1] [1933] 1 KB 205.

^[2] 2009 UKHL 33.

^[3] 1 QB 86 (1891).

^[4] AIR 1958 MP 48.

^[5] 911 (C.P. 1825).

^[6] (1894) 1 Q.B. 495.

^[7] (1891) KB 496.

^[8] 1869 LR 4 HL 171(HL).