LAW OF TORTS

VANI VASANTHA KUMAR

ASST PROFESSOR(FACULTY OF LAW)
PES UNIVERSITY
UNIT II- GENERAL DEFENCES IN
LAW OF TORT
 A tort is a civil wrong for which an action of remedy is also available.
 In tort if a plaintiff has a right to bring action even a defendant has right to defend himself.
 General defences available to a defendant under torts
1.Volenti-non-fit injuria 6.Mistake
2.Plaintiff the wrong doer 7.Necessity
8.Statutory Authority
3.Inevitable Accident 9.Parental and Quasi Parental Authority
4.Act of God 10.Judicial acts or Quasi judicial acts
5.Private Defence
1.Volenti-non-fit injuria

 When a person voluntarily consented to do something then he cannot claim

damages under the law of tort.
Essentials
1 .Risk must be known to the plaintiff : Dan v/s Hamilton and Smith v/s Baker
2.Plaintiff knowing the risk voluntarily agreed to incur it:Padmavati v/s
Dugganaika(1975) 1kamLJ 93,1975 A.C.J 222 .
Imperial Chemical Industries v/s Shat Well.
3.Consent must be freely given:Lakshmi Ranjanv/s Malar Hospital Ltd
III (1998) CP586(TamilNadu SCDRC)
a. Consent maybe expressed or implied.
b. Consent obtained by Fraud
case law: RV Williams (1923) 1 K.B 340

Exceptions to the Maxim

1.Consent obtained under Compulsion

2.Negligence of the defendant
3.Rescue cases
Case law:slater v/s clay cross co Ltd
Haynes v/s Harwood
2.Plaintiff the Wrong doer

 When plaintiff himself is a wrong doer he is not disabled from recovering in tort
unless some unlawful act or conduct on his own part is connected with the harm
suffered by him as a part of the same transaction.
3.Inevitable Accident

 An inevitable accident is that which could not possibly be prevented by the

exercise of ordinary care , caution and skill

 Assam State Coop etc Federation Ltd v/s smt Anubhasinha Air 2001 Guwahati 18

 Nitro-Glycerine case[1872] 15 Wallace,524.

4.Act of God

 Loss due to working of natural forces like tide,heavy rain etc

Essentials
1.Working of natural forces
2.Occurrence must be extraordinary
Case law: Nichols v/s Marsland (1876)2EX01
5.Private Defence

 Defendant using force for self defence, he will not be liable for harm cost: Turner
v/s Jogmohan Singh (1905)ILR27ALL 531

6.Mistake
A mistake to be taken as a defence there should be an act of honest and mistaken
belief
7.Necessity

 An act causing damage if done under necessity to prevent a greater evil is not
actionable even though harm was caused intentionally.
 Cope v/s Sharpe[1891] 1 KB 496

8.Statutory Authority
 An act authorized by the legislature is not actionable even though it would be
tort.
 Case law: Vaughan v Taff Valde Rail co [1860] 5H and N 679
9.Parental and Quasi parental Authority

 Before a parent or a person in loco parentis could inflict moderate and reasonable
corporal punishment with a condition it should be moderate and reasonable .
 Now the out look has changed as human rights plays a important role in
protecting children.
10.Judicial acts/Quasi Judicial acts

 Any judge, magistrate or other person acting judicially

cannot be bought under tort for an act done by them in
discharge of judicial and official function.