Justification of Tort

Or
Defences of Tort
Meaning of justification:- is an acceptable reason for doing something or something that justified an action or
can be called as defences of Tort.
introduction:- There are certain justification which are related to a perticular wrong but there are other
justification which are common to all kind of wrongs these are rules of immunity which limit to liability there
are various condition which when present with prevent an act from being wrongfull which in their absence
would be a wrong under such condition the act is said to be justified or excused.
(i) Acts of the state :- An acts of the state is essentially an exercise of the sovereign power so it can not be
challengible‚ control or interfere with by the courts its sanction is not that of law but that of sovereign power
and the court must accept it without questions.
For exemple:- seize \ accquisition take of the the land by government and its sovereign power or if the
government declear a war then no court can challenge it or if the state imposes any emergency can not be
challenge by court.

(ii) Judicial Acts :- No action like for the act done or word spoken by a judge in exercise of his judicial office.
A judicial officer is not liable to be sued for an action which he performe during his office not only the judicial
officer are protected also the officer acting under their order. If an act done by a judicial officer during the
discharge of his duty. He is whether or not‚ he has discharge those duty irregularly or without the believeing in
good faith that he had jurisdiction.
For exemple:- If the judge for killing of an accussed or order of his imprisonment or etc.

(iii) Exective acts:- The order of a public authority if apparently valid afford a good defence to a tort. There are
various inactment which give immunity to a public servent from sued in respect of act done in the performance
of their duty.
For exemple:- A police officer arested to an accussed from his home then no sued against police officer.

(iv) Quisa-i-Judicial Acts:- The person enjoying quisa-i-judicial power are protected from civil liability if they
observe the rules of natural justice which make prescribe their code of conduct but a person enjoying quisa-i-
judicial power must act in good faith and must give both parties and oppertunity of defence to bring their
matter power. These act includes the act of univerisity‚ college‚ communities‚ or act of the arbitrater.

(v) Parental and Quisa-i-parental Authority :- Parent or person who acting for the purpose of correcting a child
may inflict‚ moderate and resonable punishment. The authority school teacher is that is the same as that of a
parent.
For exemple:- When parent punished the child can not goes to court.

(Vi) Authorities of Necessity:- The captain of an aeroplan or a ship had the power to Discipline and control his
screw and passenger. The authority of a captain to inflict minor or moderate punishment is recognized by law.
For exemple:- A person someking in the aeroplan and punished by captain of aeroplan then no suit file against
him.

(vii) Damage Incident to Authorized of Act:- If the legislature authorized an act no action can be mantained or
brought for that act and consequency the person who has received a law by the doing of a wrongful act is
without remedy. The principle is that the act is not wrongful because it is for the public purpose and the as
authorized such act.
For exemple:-A person works in the electric compony and naturally struck of current to his then that person no
sued to owner of factory.
Case:- Hammer smith vs Osbovne
-----------› value of land depreciated due to Railway
(viii) Inevitable Accident :- Inevitable accident is that which can not be prevented by the exercise of ordinary
care. An accident may be define as one out of ordinary court of things‚ someting is so unusual and not to be
looked for by a person of ordinary senses. The inevitable accident may be divide into two kind.
(i) The acts of God or vis major
(ii) Those where human being has his part.
For exemple:- If a man comes fire armes his duty is only not to harm others and if an accident happen he may
that it was due to inevitable accident.
Case:- Harnam singh vs R.P. Auto Aid
-------› Bursting of tire

(ix) Exercise of Common Right:- The Exercise of ordinary right for a lawful purpose in a lawful manner is no
wrong even if it causes damage it is in reference to the maxim "damnum sin injuria" it is privilege of a trader
in a free country to regulate his own way of carrying his trade according to his own choice and wishes.
For exemple:- If "A" person open his shop at 9 o clock and "B" person open his shop at 12 o clock ‚ no one can
make the liable.

(x) Leave and licence:-

" Volenti non fit injuria"
A harm suffered voluntarily does not constitute a legal injury and is not actionable a man can not complain of
the harm to the chances of which he has exposed himself which knowledge and of his free will one who has
invited or assented to an act being done toward him can not when he suffered from it‚ complain of it as a
wrong
For exemple:- Smoking
Case:- Sentini Cermica P. Ltd. Vs Kunchi Krishna Mohan and Ors[1]: Statutory Authority: Search and seizure
on the premises of appellant do not constitute an act of trespass. It can’t be said that any procedure carried out
to find the truth on the property will be construed to be an act of trespass if the act is carried out with sufficient
legal backing.

(xi) Work of Necessity:- The exception is base on the maxim that the walfear of the people is supreme law of
the State‚ in a society a person that his property like and liberty shall under certain circumstances be place in
danger or even sacrified for the public good. There are certain cases for which the individual sustain an injury
for which the law give no action.
For exemple:- As private houses are pulled to stop a fire or for the preservation and defence of the kingdom
Case:- Carter vs Thomas
---------›Fire accident occured in the plaintiff permises

(xii) Private Defence:- Every person has a right to defence his own person‚ property or possession again an
unlawful harm this may be even done for a wife or a husband‚ a parent or a child‚ a master or a servent the
person acting on the defensive in entitled to use as much force as he reasonably beleive to be necessarly injury
received by an annocent third person from an act done in self defence must be dealt with as accidental harm
caused from a lawful act.
Case:- Ramnuja vs M. Gangan
---------›Electric wire