Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )

z Plaintiff the wrongdoer

 This defence arises from the Latin maxim “ex turpi causa non oritur
action” which means no action arises from an immoral cause.
 The law excuses the defendant when the act done by the plaintiff itself was
illegal or wrong.

 Under this defence, it has to be seen as to what is the connection between the
plaintiff’s wrongful act and the harm suffered by him. If his own act is the
determining cause of the harm suffered by him, he has no cause of action.
 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )

Which of the following is correct about consent in volenti non fit

injuria?
(A)Knowledge of the risk does not always amount to consent.

(B)Knowledge of a risk does not precede consent.

(C)Knowledge of the risk always amounts to consent.

(D)Mere perception of the existence of danger amounts to consent.

 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )

Which of the following is not an element to claim the defence of volenti

non fit Injuria?
(A)Prior knowledge of the plaintiff about the risk involved.

(B)Free consent.

(C)Plaintiff is compelled to agree to a risk by the defendant.

(D)Voluntary acceptance of the risk by the plaintiff

 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )

z
Inevitable Accident
• An accident means an unexpected injury and if the same could not have been foreseen
and avoided, in spite of reasonable care on the part of the defender, it is the inevitable
accident. It is, therefore, a good defence if the defended can show that he neither
intended to injure the plaintiff nor could he avoid the injury by taking reasonable care..

• It may be noted that the defence of the inevitable accident is available when the event is
unforeseeable and consequences unavoidable in spite of reasonable precautions. Even if
the event is like heavy rain and flood but if the same can be anticipated and guarded
against and the consequences can be avoided by reasonable precautions, the defence of
inevitable accident cannot be pleaded in such case.
 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )

• In the case of Holmes v. Mather, the defendant’s horse was being driven by his
servant. Due to the barking ofdogs, the horse became unmanageable and
started to bolt. In spite of every effort of the driver, the horse
knocked down the plaintiff. This makes it a case of an inevitable accident and
the defendants were held not liable for the incident.

• In Stanley v. Powell [1891], the plaintiff was employed to carry a cartridge for
a shooting party when they had gone pheasant-shooting. A member of the
party fired at a distance but the bullet, after hitting a tree, rebounded into the
plaintiff’s eye. When the plaintiff sued it was held that the defendant was not
liable in the light of the circumstance of an inevitable accident
 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )

z
Act of God/ Force Majeure
• Act of God or Vis Major or Force Majeure may be defined as circumstances which no
human foresight can provide against any of which human prudence is not bound to recognize
the possibility, and which when they do occur, therefore are calamities that do not involve the
obligation of paying for the consequences that result from them.

• The act of God is a defence used in cases of torts when an event over which the defendant has
no control occurs and the damage is caused by the forces of nature. In such cases, the
defendant will not be liable in tort law for such inadvertent damage.

• It is a kind of inevitable accident with the difference that in the case of Act of God, the
resulting loss arises out of the working of natural forces like exceptionally heavy rainfall,
storms, tempest, tides and volcanic eruptions.
 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )

Two important essentials are needed for this defense:

• There must be working of natural forces

• The occurrence must be extraordinary and not one which could be anticipated and

reasonably guarded against.

In Nichols v. Marsland, the defendant created an artificial lake on his land by collecting water

from natural streams. Once there was an extraordinary rainfall, heaviest in human memory.

The embankments of the lake got destroyed and washed away all the four bridges belonging

to the plaintiff. The court held that the defendants were not liable as the same was due to the

Act of God.
 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )

Ramalinga Nadar v. Narayana Reddiar (1971)

• The plaintiff had booked goods with the defendantfor transportation. The goods were looted

by a mob, the prevention of which was beyond the control of the defendant. It was held that

every event beyond the control of the defendant cannot be said Act of God. It was held that

the destructive acts of an unruly mob cannot be considered an Act of God.

• It was observed that: “Accidents may happen by reason of the play of natural forces or by

the intervention of human agency or by both. It may be that in either of these cases, an

accident may be inevitable. But it is only those acts which can be traced to natural forces

and which have nothing to do with the intervention of human agency that could be an aid to

be acts of God.
 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )

• Clause entered in agreements to cover Act of God events.

• Act of events are those events over which humans have no control. Eg. Natural calamities,

Fire, Change in Law etc.

• It is to be made sure that there must be impossibility of performance.

 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )

z
Quick Question
Rahul, operating from Rajasthan had entered into a contract with Rishika, operating from Maharashtra, to provide 1000

quantities of a commodity by March 31, 2020. However, due to outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government

announced a nationwide lockdown from March 22, 2020 for a period of two months. It included a complete ban on inter-state

movement of all road transport. Rahul wants to enforce the force majeure clause now due to his inability to transport the product.

(a) Force Majeure is applicable since the performance has become impossible.

(b)Force Majeure is not applicable even if the performance has become impossible.

(c)Force Majeure is not applicable since the performance has not become impossible.

(d)None of the Above

 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )

z
Private Defence
The law permits the use of reasonable force to protect one’s person or property. If the
defendant uses the force which is necessary for self-defence, he will not be liable for the harm
caused thereby.

To use this defence three conditions need to be satisfied.

1. There should be an imminent threat to the personal safety or property, for example, A

would not be justified in using a force against B, merely because he thinks that B

would attack him someday, nor can the force be justified by way of retaliation after the

attack is already over.

2. The force that is used is absolutely necessary to repel the invasion should be used for.
 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )

• The force used by the defendant should be in proportion to the act committed and enough
to ward off the imminent danger. It should not be excessive and must not be out of the
proportion to the apparent urgency of the occasion. for example, if A Strikes B, B cannot
justify drawing his sword and cutting off his hand.

• For example, A would not be justified in using force against B just because he believes that
some day he will be attacked by B.

• 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.

• For example, fixing of broken glass pieces on a wall, keeping a fierce dog, etc. is all justified
in the eyes of law.
 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )

• In Bird v. Holbrook, the defendant fixed up spring guns in his garden without displaying any
notice regarding the same and the plaintiff who was a trespasser suffered injuries due to its
automatic discharge. The court held that this act of the defendant is not justified and the
plaintiff is entitled to get compensation for the injuries suffered by him.
 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )

z
Mistake

 Mistake, whether of fact or of law, is generally no defence to an action for tort.

 In Consolidated Co. v. Curtis (1894), an auctioneer was asked to auction certain goods by his

customer honestly believing that the goods belonged to the customer he auctioned them and he

paid the sale proceeds to the customer. In fact, the goods belonged to the other person. In an

action by the true owner, the auctioneer was held liable for a tort of conversion.

 To this rule, there is some exception when the defender may be able to avoid his liability by

showing that he acted under an honest but mistaken belief.

 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )

z
 In Morrison v. Ritchie & Co, the defendant by mistake published a statement that the plaintiff had

given birth to twins in good faith. The reality of the matter was that the plaintiff got married just two

months before. The defendant was held liable for the offence of defamation and the element of good

faith is immaterial in such cases.

 In Consolidated Company v. Curtis, an auctioneer auctioned some goods of his customer, believing that

the goods belonged to him. But then the true owner filed a suit against the auctioneer for the tort of

conversion. The court held auctioneer liable and mentioned that the mistake of fact is not a defence

that can be pleaded here.

 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )

z Necessity
 An act causing damage, if done under a necessity to prevent a greater evil is not actionable even though

harm was caused intentionally.

 In Cope v. Sharpe (1891), the defendant entered the plaintiff’s land to prevent the spread of fire to the

adjoining land over which the defendant’s master had the shooting rights. Since the defendant’s act was

considered to be reasonably necessary to save the game from real and imminent danger, it was held that

the defendant was not liable for trespass.

 If, however, that interference is not reasonably necessary, by the defender will be liable. In Carter v.

Thomas (1891), the defender, who entered the plaintiff’s premises in good faith to extinguish a fire at

which the fireman had already been working, was held liable for trespass.
 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )
The following points should be considered:
z

• In necessity, the infliction of harm is upon an innocent whereas in case of private

defence the plaintiff is himself a wrongdoer.

• In necessity, the harm is done intentionally whereas in case of an inevitable accident

the harm is caused in spite of making all the efforts to avoid it.

 For example, performing an operation of an unconscious patient just to save his

life is justified.

.
 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )
 In Leigh v. Gladstone, it was held that the forcible feeding of a person who was hunger-striking in a
z
prison served as a good defence for the tort of battery.

 In Cope v. Sharpe, 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.

 In the case of Carter v. Thomas, the defendant who entered the plaintiff’s land premises in good faith

to extinguish the fire, at which the fire extinguishing workmen were already working, was held guilty

of the offence of trespass.

 In Kirk v. Gregory, A’s sister-in-law hid some jewellery after the death of A from the room where he

was lying dead, thinking that to be a more safe place. The jewellery got stolen from there and a case

was filed against A’s sister-in-law for trespass to the jewellery. She was held liable for trespass as the

step she took was unreasonable

 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )

z Statutory Authority

 When an act is done, under the authority of an Act, it is a complete defence and the injured party has no

remedy except for claiming such compensation as may have been provided by the statue, the damage

resulting from an act, which the legislature authorizes or directs to be done, is not actionable even

though it would otherwise be a tort.

 For example, if a railway line is constructed there may be interference with private land. when the train

is run, there may also be some incidental harm due to noise, vibration, smoke, emission of sparks, etc.

 However, this does not give the authorities the license to do what they want unnecessarily; they must act

in a reasonable manner.
 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )
 In Hammer Smith Rail Co. v. Brand, the value of the property of the plaintiff depreciated due to the
z
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.

 In Smith v. London and South Western Railway Co., the servants of a railway company negligently left

the trimmings of hedges near the railway line. The sparks from the engine set fire to those hedges and

due to high winds, it got spread to the plaintiff’s cottage which was not very far from the line. The

court held that the railway authority was negligent in leaving the grass hedges near the railway line

and the plaintiff was entitled to claim compensation for the loss suffered.
 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )

z
Absolute and conditional authority

 The authority given by a statute can be of two types:

Absolute

Conditional

 In the case of Absolute authority, there is no liability if the nuisance or some

other harm necessarily results but when the authority is conditional it means

that the same is possible without nuisance or any other harm.

 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )

 In the case of Metropolitan Asylum District v. Hil, the hospital authorities i.e. the appellants

were granted permission to set up a smallpox hospital. But the hospital was created in a

residential area which was not safe for the residents as the disease can spread to that area.

Considering it a nuisance an injunction was issued against the hospital. The authority, in

this case, was conditional.