The document outlines various general defenses in tort law that protect actions from being deemed wrongful, including acts of state, executive acts, private defense, and necessity. It includes case law examples, emphasizing that certain actions, even if harmful, may not result in liability if performed under specific justifications such as judicial authority or statutory backing. The principles of consent, inevitable accidents, and the role of wrongdoers are also discussed in relation to tortious claims.

1. GENERAL DEFENCES IN TORT

2. INTRODUCTION
• Various conditions which protect the act from being
wrongful which in their absence would be wrong.
• Sir Fredrick Pollock stated that “ The rules of immunity which
restrict the rules of liability”
• Under such situation the act is said to be justified.

3. 1.Acts of State
2.Executive Acts
3.Private Defense
4.Plaintiff A Wrongdoer
5.Authority of Necessity
GENERALDEFENSES
6. Mistake of Fact
7. Exercise of Common Rights
8. Necessity
9. Quasi-judicial Acts

4. 10. Acts Done Under Parental or Quasi Parental Authority
11. Judicial Acts
12. Acts Done under Statutory Authority
13. Volenti Non Fit Injuria
14. Inevitable Accidents
15. Acts Causing Slight Harm

5. ACT OF STATE
• The Act of State is an Injury done against an alien.
• By a servant of the crown
• Act is previously authorized approve by the sovereign
which done under state policy is not cognizable by any
municipal court.

6. CASE:Buron v.Denman (1848)2Ex.167
If a servant of the Crown commits a wrongful act against an
alien, and the Crown authorized such act, or subsequently ratifies
it, it is an act of State and no action will lie in respect of it
against such servant.

7. The defendant, a British naval commander, in execution of a treaty
concluded with the King of the Gallinas, fired the premises of the
plaintiff, a Spaniard, and liberated his slaves. The English
Government adopted and ratified the act. Held, the defendant was
not liable.

8. GOVERNMENT CAN BE MADE LIABLE EVEN THOUGH
THE ACT IS AN ACT OF THE STATE WHEN -
• Trespass to immovable property.
• An obligation inflict by a statute.
• Some benefit has evolve to the Government.

9. JUDICIALACTS
PRINCIPLE OF PUBLICBENEFIT-
• Suit will come against a judge for any act done or words
spoken in his judicial capacity.
• Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850

10. CASE: Anderson v. Gorrie (1895)1Q. B.668
A judge acted exacting to the prejudice of the plaintiff and
committed the plaintiff for contempt of court and asked for
excessive bail.

11. QUASI - JUDICIAL ACTS
Protected from civil liability if they observe Principles of
Natural Justice, the particular Statutory Rule.

12. CASE : Devchand v. Ghanashyam (1935) 37 B.L R. 417
The cast had the jurisdiction to excommunicate the members and
the court would not interfere in the matter.

13. EXECUTIVE ACTS
• Valid orders of a public power form a good defense to a tort.
• But if an officer maliciously arrests a person or takes his
commodities he will be liable.
• Do not enjoy any protection except that consult by legislature
enactments.

14. ACTS DONE UNDER PARENTIAL OR QUASI
PARENTALAUTHORITY
Parents or persons in loco parentis may, for the purpose of
correcting what is bad in the child, inflict corporal
punishment, extent of which is reasonable.

15. CASE- Rex v. Newport Justices, (1929)2K.B.416
The schoolmaster has power to punish students for their
mistake.

16. AUTHORITY OF NECESSITIY
• The master of a ship on the high seas or in foreign port has
power not only over the crew, but on the passengers also.
• Such majority are based upon necessity.
• Powers are restricted to preservation of necessary discipline
and the safety.
EXAMPLE - Commander of an aircraft has similar powers
jurisdiction of necessity.

17. NECESSITY
Salus populi est suprema lex: The welfare of the people is the
supreme authority. ILLUSTRATION- Suppose a fire originates in
A’s house through some unknown defect in electrical installations.
In extinguishing the fire B’s adjoining property is damaged by

18. water. B brings action against A, claiming damages for the
damage done to his property. B cannot succeed , since A was
acting under complete necessity.

19. ACTS DONE UNDER STATUTORYAUTHORITY
• A person injured by such jurisdiction act can have no remedy,
except for one provided by the statute.
CASE: Ram Gopal v. Govt. of U.P (1951) 1 All. 135 : The govt.
was not held liable a the claimed tortious act was performed in
discharge of an restriction imposed by law .

20. • Exercise of Common Rights: The exercise of ordinary
rights for a lawful need in a lawful manner is no wrong
even if it causes damage Was case of - “Damnum sine
injuria”.

21. VOLENTI NON FITINJURIA
• (The plaintiff cannot complain about the act if an act is done
with) Consent of the plaintiff.
• The plaintiff has voluntarily with complete knowledge of the
nature of the risk, agreed to an act.

22. CASE : Hall v. Brooklands Auto-Racing Club: A racing car
shot over the railing and killed two spectators. It was held that
there was no negligence and that this type of danger is
inherent in car racing.

23. APPLICATIONS
• Intentional acts which would otherwise be tortuous.
• Consent to run the risk of accidental harm, which would
otherwise be actionable as due to negligence of the
person who caused it.

24. INEVITABLEACCIDENTS(ACTOF GOD)
[An accident which is physically unavoidable]
• Inevitable accidents may be caused by - Factors beyond the
control of man, vis major.
• Factors which are within human control.

25. CASE : Holmes v. Mather (1875) L.R 10 Ex. 261
(Runaway horses Case): It was held that no action was
maintainable by the plaintiff as servant had done his best
under the situation to control horse.

26. MISTAKE OF FACT
1. Not an excuse, except in the cases where motive is an essential
ingredient constitutingthe wrong.
CASE - Consolidated Company v. Curtis & Sons (1892) 1 Q. B.
425 Mistake of fact was no reason for trespassing with the
plaintiff’s property so wrongfully sold and delivery.

27. PRIVATE DEFENCE
CASE -Turner v. Jagmohan Singh
A vicious horse continued to attack a pair of female horse of the
carriage in which the defendant was riding even after several
attempts of the defendant to calm it. The defendant got hold of a
inflicted a wound on it which resulted in it’s death. Held, the
defendant’s act was valid.

28. PLAINTIFFAWRONGDOER
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio : No action arises from an immoral
cause
A person cannot ask for damages for an accident where he himself
was negligent in his driving or in violation of the rules of the road

29. CASE : Stockdale v. Onwhyn, 5 B & C, 173
The author of a copyrighted book which is banned as indecent
cannot maintain an action against a person who has pirated a
version of the book.

30. • De minimus non curat lex
• Nothing is a wrong of which a person of ordinary sense and
temper would not complain- SECTION 59 OF IPC.
ACTS CAUSING SLIGHT HARM

31. CASE - Coward v. Baddeley, (1859) 4 H&N 478
In this case, B touched the plaintiff, a fireman, on his arm to draw his
attention to another part of the fire. Held that B was not liable for
battery in those circumstances.