The ppt is about different aspects of defenses under tortious liability

1. EVASION OF LIABILITY IN TORTS
NAME – BIVABASU KUNDU
SAP ID - 81022019213
SUB – LAW OF TORTS
BATCH – BBA LLB [2020-25]

2. INTRODUCTION
 Term ‘Tort’ – French equivalent of English word: ‘Wrong’
 Infringement of legal rights
 Based on the maxim - “Ubi jus ibi remedium”
 Evasion of Tortious liability in the form of defences

3. HYPOTHESIS
 Involves two or more parties except personal relations
 Invasion of legal rights of others
 Capable & eligible to enter into a contract
 Independent of motive

4. EVASION OF TORTIOUS LIABILITY
 Remoteness of damage
General Defence –
Volenti non fit Injuria Statutory authority
Inevitable Accident Act of God
Private Defence Necessity
Administrative Acts Judicial Acts

5. VOLENTI NON-FIT INJURIA –
 Self-infliction by the plaintiff
 Implied consent of the Plaintiff
 Exception – ‘Qualified Consent’ or ‘Due Negligence’
 Case of “Smith v. Baker & sons” – Plaintiff who was employee of the
defendant suffered injury due to the rocks falling over him. The court
held the defendant liable as the ‘duty of care’ was absent.

6. PRIVATE DEFENCE –
 Apprehension of danger or imminent threat to himself or to property
 Plaintiff does not have time to seek recourse
 Principle fails, whenever there is a misuse
 Case of “Mohinder pal jolly v. state of Punjab” - The court held the
plaintiff liable for the death of the worker in the factory as there was
no imminent presence of threat in that circumstance.

7. INEVITABLE ACCIDENT –
 Unexpected event and unavoidable injury
 Plaintiff was unaware of the uncertainty
 ‘Intent’ & ‘Duty of Care’ plays a decisive role
 Burden of proof lies on plaintiff
 Case of “Stanley v. Powell” - The defendant fired at a distance, which after
hitting a tree rebounded into the plaintiff’s eye. Hence, the court ruled out
the liability of the defendant in the light of inevitable accident.

8. ACT OF GOD –
 Loss rendered by the natural forces
 No control over the occurrences
 Application used for claiming insurances during the pandemic due to frustration of
contract.
 Case of “Ramalinga Nadar v. Narayana Reddy” - The plaintiff booked with the
defendant for transportation of goods which were looted by an unruly mob. The
court rejected the plea of the defence of ‘Act of God’; as the occurrence of event was
due to intervention of human agency.

9. NECESSITY –
 Based on the maxim ‘Salus populi suprema lex’
 Deliberate infliction of harm / injury is caused to one for the sake of public
good
 Doctrine of necessity is confined to only one situation where there is
imminent threat / danger to public life or property
 Case of “Cope v. Sharpe” - The court ruled out that the liability of trespass
as it observed the defendant’s act was necessary to prevent the spread of fire
on the plaintiff’s land.

10. CONCLUSION
 Independent of the motive involved
 Such defences offers immunity to the plaintiff allowing him to justify
his course of action
 Overlooks the essence of ‘consent’
 Often results in misuse of the applications and evade from the liability