General defence under tort

1. GENERAL DEFENCE
UNDER TORT LAW (NECESSITY)
1
Submitted to
NAIZA WAHAB
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
Department of Law & Human Rights
University of Aisa Pacific
Submitted by
Sumiya Rahman Anha
ID: 21211039
Course:Law of Torts(109)

2. Content: Doctrine of Necessity
Meaning
Illustration
Conditions of Reasonablness
Reported case
Hypothetical case
2

3. What is Necessity?
Preventing great loss or harm
by doing less dangerous act
Welfare of the public is
the Supreme law
3
3

4. Illustration
Drowning girl in pool Defendant broke the wooden
door to save the girl
Defendant was sued
for compensation
Defendant held not liable
to pay any compensation
4
1 2 3 4

5. CONDITIONS OF REASONABLENESS
Interference must
be necessary
There must be a balance
between the harm caused
and the evil prevented
1 2 3
Interference must
be reasonable
5

6. Reported Case
Fact
Surocco V. Geary (1853)
Geary, the defendant was the Alcalde (judicial or administrative officer) of San Francisco burned down the
house of the plaintiff in order to keep a fire from spreading in the city. Plaintiff sued to recover for the
damages caused by such destruction.
Issue
Is a person liable to a property owner for destruction of property if they destroyed the property in good faith
and under the necessity of preventing future harm?
6

7. Judgement
A person is not liable to a property owner for destruction of property if they destroyed the property in good faith
and under the necessity of preventing future harm.
Reasoning
In situations where there is great risk for public harm, private rights of individuals may be surrendered to the
considerations of general convenience and the interest of society.
In order to avoid liability, the individual must prove that there was a necessity to destroy or damage the
property of any person. The legislature of a State may determine when such destruction is permissible.
However, if there is no such rule, common law principles will be followedI.
In this case, the Court recognizes the common law privilege of necessity. In cases involving a fire that is likely
to spread, an individual is privileged to destroy the house when such destruction is necessary to halt the
spread. Thus, there can be no recovery for the damages arisen from such a necessary destruction.
7

8. Hypothetical Case
Fact
An electric line went over the roof of Mr. Farhan’s recently constructed building. He applied to the Palli
Bidyut office for the removal of the line immediately. Upon inspection, the Authority directed him to
erect a temporary brick wall until the line is removed by them. He followed their advice. However, a 10-
year girl of that building, secretly climbed up the wall and got an electric shock. Discovering the injured
girl, her father Mr. Rahim ran into Mr. Farhan's property and broke that protective wall.
Mr. Farhan sued Mr. Rahim for trespassing and damaging his property.
Farhan V. Rahim (2022)
8
= ?

9. Iusses
Judgement
1: Whether Mr. Rahim was liable for the loss of Mr. Farhan?
2. Whether the doctrine of necessity is applicable to the defence of Mr. Rahim?
3. Whether Mr. Farhan is entitled to claim compensation for his loss against Mr. Rahim?
Mr. Rahim is not liable due to the reasonableness of his action under the necessity principle. Mr. Farhan is
not entitled to any compensation from Mr. Rahim.
9

10. Reasoning
Necessity is a special defence available in tort. It is one of the principles of natural justice. This
defence arises when a person is forced to break the law in an emergency situation to prevent greater
harm from taking place. It derives from the Latin maxim "Salus Populi Suprema len esto" which
means that welfare of the people should be the Supreme law and if a person causes any damage to a
person's right or property as to prevent a greater harm, it is not blameworthy.
In this case, it was necessary for Mr. Rahim to break the wall at that time to save the life of her
daughter. Though he violated the rights of Mr. Farhan by trespassing and damaging his property, still
he cannot be held liable. The reactions from Mr. Rahim was reasonable. Otherwise, the life of the girl
could be at stake.
The reasoning is supported by “Cope V. Sharpe (1912)“ where the defendant had to commit
trespassing to extinguish a fire to prevent greater harm and the defendant was not held liable. So, the
defendant did not have to pay compensation to the plaintiff.
Therefore, in the light of the doctrine of necessity, Mr. Rahim is not liable and Mr. Farhan is not
entitled to any compensation.
10

11. 11