Justification of Torts.

2. JUSTIFICATION OF TORTS
When a Plaintiff brings an action against a defendant for a
particular tort providing existing of all essential of that tort, the
defendant would be held liable for that.
But some privileges are also available for defendant to defend
so they can escape his liability.
1. Volenti non fit injuria.
2. Plaintiff the wrong doer.
3. Inevitable Accidents.
i. Injury to eye
ii. Damage to explosive substance
iii. Injury by runaway horses
iv. Injury by pallet.
4. Act of God.
5. Private Defense / Self-defense.
6. Mistake.
7. Necessity.
8. Statutory Authority.

3. 2. PLAINTIFF THE WRONG DOER.
Ex turpi causa non oritur
actio
No Action arises from an immoral
cause

4. ILLUSTRATION :
In this picture a person is trying to trespass in the
land, if he got injured , he can’t sue the owner of the
premises.
 No court will aid a person who found his cause of
action upon an immoral or illegal aid.

5.  A accident which is physically unavoidable .
 If any accident with all due care and precautions will happen called
Inevitable Accident.
 An accident not caused by human negligence. (Merriam-webster)
a. a. A large storm causing the roadway to collapse when
someone is driving over it could be considered an inevitable
accident since the accident was caused by an unexpected
storm and not human error.
b. b. Case : (Runaway Horses Case), Holmes v. Mather
(1875) LR 10 Ex. 261
c. c. Smith v Lord [1962] SASR 88:
“As the driver had no long history of heart related issues, he
was able to deny liability with the defence of inevitable accident
for an accident which was caused by loss of vehicle control due to
cardiac failure”.

6. d. Collins Transport Group Pty Ltd v Kerry
Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd [2006] SADC 124:
A collision between two vehicles was held to be unavoidable as
expert cardiologist evidence supported that the driver had
insufficient time to react and avoid the accident due to the
cardiac event.
e. Dowsing v Goodwin(1998) 27 MVR 43:
Although the driver suffered a sudden hypoglycaemic attack, she
had the condition since childhood and her blood sugar levels
were of concern weeks before the accident. As such, she was
found negligent for not taking reasonable steps to prevent the
occurrence of the attacks.

7. f. K & S Freighters Pty Ltd v Nelmeer Hoteliers
Pty Ltd-BC 200103009:
As there was a known history of chest pain which
had previously progressed into a heart attack, there
was sufficient warning that something was not right,
so his defence was dismissed by the court.

8. An act of God is a defense used in cases of torts
when an event over which the defendant has no control
over 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.
The loss in act of GOD arises from natural factors likes:
 Exceptionally heavy rain fall
 Storms
 Earth quakes
 Tides

9.  The act should result from a natural force.
 No human intervention.
 Extraordinary in nature.
1994 Cooper v. Horn, 248 Va. 417, 448 S.E.2d 403.
Earthen dam broke causing damage to property owners
downstream. Defendants alleged extraordinary flood is act of God.
To relieve one of liability because flood is act of God, it must appear
that act of God was sole proximate cause of injury. In this instance
human agency was element, since there was evidence of negligence
in terms of construction of dam.

10.  1951 Portsmouth v. Culpepper, 192 Va. 362, 64 S.E.2d
799.
Act of the divine or of God defined as any accident due to
natural cause directly and exclusively without human
intervention such as could not have been prevented by any
amount of foresight.
 Artificial lakes case
 Kalulala v/s hamchand case (wall fallen due to lightly rain)

11. Among the general defences in tort, private defence is
the most common. When a defendant tries to protect his
body or property or any other person’s property, harms
another person by using reasonable force, under an
imminent-danger and where there is no time to report
instantly to the authority, it is Private Defence. The harm
done should be proportional according to the nature of
the circumstances.
i.
ii.

13. When a defendant acts under a mistaken belief in some or
the other situation, he may plead the defense of mistake.
A mistake is of two types:
 The mistake of law: No defense in each civil and
criminal case.
 The mistake of fact: Not valid in torts

14. ‘Necessity knows no law’. In order to avoid or prevent a
great loss or harm, a defendant can cause lesser harm
that is justified. The act of the defendant may be not legal
but if it is to avoid major damage then he can plead this
defense.
 When the defendant acts to avoid a significant risk of
harm.
 His causing of harm should be justified.

15.  Illustrations:
Case: Surocco v. Geary
 Facts
San Francisco was hit by a major fire. The plaintiff,
Surocco, was attempting to remove goods from his home
while the fire raged nearby. The defendant and mayor of
San Francisco, Geary, authorized that the plaintiff's home
be demolished to stop the progress of the fire and to
prevent its spread to nearby buildings. Surocco sued the
mayor claiming he could have recovered more of his
possessions had his house not been blown up.
 Issue
Is a person liable for the private property of another if
destroying that property would prevent an imminent public
disaster?

16.  Decision
No. The right of necessity falls under natural law and
exists independent of society and government. Individual
rights must give way to the higher law of impending
necessity. A house on fire or about to catch on fire is a
public nuisance which is lawful to abate. Otherwise one
stubborn person could destroy an entire city. If property is
destroyed without an apparent necessity, the destroying
person would be liable to the property owner for trespass.
Here, blowing up Surocco's house was necessary to stop
the fire. Any delay in blowing up the house to allow him to
remove more of his possessions would have made
blowing up the house too late.

17. Another general defence is statutory Authority. If
an act is sanctioned by a statutory enactment or a
law passed by the legislature, then the defendant
cannot be held liable for the damages resulting in
the course of such an act.
If there is a railway line near your house and the noises of
the train passing disturbs then you have no remedy
because the construction and the use of the railway is
authorized under a statute.

18. However, this does not give the authorities the
license to do what they want unnecessarily; they
must act in a reasonable manner. I have an
example for this from my own life, there was a
telephone exchange in my locality and the
generators which were used were of very high
frequency which was permitted in a residential
area, the court asked the exchange to be
removed from that place.