Justification of Torts & General Defences

1
JUSTIFICATION of TORTS AND
GENERAL DEFENCES

2
GENERAL
DEFENCES
INTRODUCTION
Under such conditions the act is said to be justified or excused
Various conditions which prevent the act from being
wrongful which in their absence would be wrong
© AIR Law Academy & Research Centre
Sir Fredrick Pollock : “The rules of immunity which limit the rules of liability”

3
Acts of State01 Executive Acts02 Private Defense03
Plaintiff A
Wrongdoer
04
Authority of
Necessity
05Mistake of Fact 06
Exercise of
Common Rights
07Necessity 08
Quasi-judicial
Acts
09
Acts Done Under
Parental or Quasi
Parental Authority
10 Judicial Acts11
Acts Done under
Statutory Authority
12
Volenti Non
Fit Injuria
13
Inevitable
Accidents
14
Acts Causing
Slight Harm
15
GENERAL DEFENCES

4
Act Of State
Done against an
alien
By a servant of the
crown
Act is previously
authorized or
subsequently ratified
by the sovereign Which done under
state policy is not
cognizable by any
municipal court
The Act of the State is an Injury
CASE : Burnin v. Denman (1848) 2 Ex. 167

5
Govt. can be made liable even though the act is an act of the State when
Trespass to
immovable property
An obligation
imposed by a
statute
Some benefit has
resulted to the
Government

6
JUDICIAL ACTS
So suit will lie against a judge for any act
done or words spoken in his judicial
capacity
Principle of
public benefit
Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850
CASE: Anderson v. Gorrie (1895) 1 Q. B. 668
A judge acted oppressively to the prejudice of the plaintiff and committed the
plaintiff for contempt of court and asked for excessive bail.
The plaintiff was not entitled for damages as the judge had acted in his judicial
capacity

7
QUASI-JUDICIAL ACTS
Protected from civil
liability if they observe
:
1. Principles of
Natural Justice
2. The particular
Statutory Rule
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

8
Valid orders of a public authority form a good defence to a tort
But if an officer maliciously arrests a person or takes his goods he will be
liable
Do not enjoy any protection except that conferred by legislature
enactments
EXECUTIVE ACTS

9
ACTS DONE UNDER PARENTAL OR
QUASI PARENTAL AUTHORITY
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
Rex v. Newport (Salop) Justices,
(1929) 2 K.B. 416
The schoolmaster was authorized
to administer reasonable
punishment to the boy for breach
of school rules

10
AUTHORITY OF NECESSITY
The master of a vessel on the high seas or in foreign port has authority not
only over the crew, but the passengers also
Such powers are based upon necessity
Powers are limited to preservation of necessary discipline and the safety
EXAMPLE
Commander of an aircraft has similar powers authority of necessity

11
Necessity
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 water. B brings action against A, claiming damages
for the damage done to his property. B cannot succeed ,
since A was acting under sheer necessity
Illustration
A person is fully justified in driving away a swarm of
locusts from his land, and is not liable for the damage
to his neighbours crops
CASE : Greyvensteyn v. Hattingh
Salus populi est suprema lex: The welfare of the people is the supreme law

12
ACTS DONE UNDER STATUTORY AUTHORITY
CASE: Ram Gopal v. Govt. of U.P
(1951) 1 All. 135
The govt. was not held liable a the
alleged tortious act was performed
in discharge of an obligation
imposed by law
A person injured by such
an authorized act can
have no remedy, except
for one provided by the
statute
Exercise of Common Rights
It will b e a case of
“Damnum sine
injuria”
The exercise of ordinary
rights for a lawful
purpose in a lawful
manner is no wrong even
if it causes damage

13
VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA
Consent of the plaintiff, or01
The plaintiff has freely or voluntarily, with full knowledge of the
nature of the risk, agreed to an act
02
The plaintiff cannot complain about the act if an act is done with
CASE :
Hall v. Brooklands Auto-Racing Club
A racing car shot over the railing and killed 2 spectators. It was held that there
was no negligence and that this type of danger is inherent in car racing

14
applications
Intentional acts which
would otherwise be
tortuous
01
Consent to run the risk of
accidental harm, which
would otherwise be
actionable as due to
negligence of the person
who caused it
02

15
INEVITABLE ACCIDENTS (ACT OF GOD)
An accident which is physically unavoidable
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 the servant had done his best under the
circumstances to control the horse
Inevitable accidents may be caused by:

16
MISTAKE OF FACT
Not an excuse, except in the cases where motive is an essential ingredient constituting the wrong.
CASE : Consolidated Company v. Curtis & Sons (1892) 1 Q. B. 425
Mistake of fact was no excuse for trespassing or interfering with the plaintiff’s property so
wrongfully sold and delivery
PRIVATE DEFENCE
CASE : Turner v. Jagmohan Singh
A vicious horse continued to attack a pair of mares 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 sphere and
inflicted a wound on it which resulted in it’s death. Held, the defendant’s act was justifiable

17
PLAINTIFF A WRONDOER
A person cannot ask for damages for
an accident where he himself was
careless in his driving or in
violation of the rules of the road
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio :
No action arises from an immoral
cause
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

18
ACTS CAUSING SLIGHT HARM
Nothing is a wrong of which a person of ordinary sense
and temper would not complain
CASE : Coward v. Braddeley, (1859) 4 H&N 478
Section59 of IPC.
De minimus non curat lex

19
Reference Book
D.D. Basu, The Law Of Torts ,Kamal , Calcutta
Ratanlal And Dhirajlal, The Law of Tort, Universal ,Delhi
J.N Boriwala, Commentary on Consumer Protection
Act,1986,Universal ,Delhi
Salmond and Heuston –On the Law of Torts
(2000)Universal, Delhi
D. M. Gandhi , Law Of Tort, Eastern Lucknow
P.K Majumdar, The Law of Consumer Protection In India
(1998),Orient Publishing Co., New Delhi
R. M Vats, Consumer and The law(1994),Universal ,Delhi

20

Justification of Torts & General Defences

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Justification of Torts & General Defences

Similar to Justification of Torts & General Defences (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Justification of Torts & General Defences