Torts and the Defences against the Torts | Civil Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

• Tort is a civil wrong, as defined by legal scholars.
• Salmond views tort as a civil wrong necessitating common law action for unliquidated damages.
• Winfield describes torts as arising from the breach of a duty fixed by law towards individuals, remedied through unliquidated damages.
• In essence, a tort constitutes a wrongful act without a specified legal remedy, with compensation being the primary form of redress.
• Various general and specific defenses exist in response to different types of torts.

General Defences to Torts

• Volenti non fit Injuria: This defense applies when the plaintiff explicitly or implicitly agrees to actions that result in their injury. The plaintiff must provide free consent, understanding the associated risks and agreeing to them voluntarily. If the plaintiff is the wrongdoer involved in illegal activities, the principle of 'ex turpi causa non oritur actio' states that they cannot seek redress.
• Inevitable Accident: In cases like Stanley Vs Powell, where unforeseeable circumstances lead to the plaintiff's injury despite reasonable precautions, the defendant is not held liable. This defense hinges on events that could not have been avoided even with foresight.
• Vis Major or Act of God: Refers to natural calamities like floods, storms, or tempests that are unforeseeable and not preventable by human actions. It differs from inevitable accident in its requirement of being a natural disaster.
• Private Defence: This defense applies when there is an imminent threat to one's person or property. The response must be proportionate to the threat, and there should be a real and imminent danger for this defense to be valid.
• Mistake of Law or Fact: Generally, this is not a valid defense in tort liability. However, in certain cases where an intentional action causing harm is necessary to prevent a greater evil, and it can be proven that the action was absolutely necessary, it may be permitted.
• Statutory Sanction: When an action causing harm is authorized by a statute, it serves as an absolute defense. This means that if the action is permitted by law, the defendant may not be held liable for the resulting injury.

Specific Defence to Torts

Negligence

• Negligence occurs when a person fails to fulfill their duty of care towards another, resulting in foreseeable harm. This breach of duty leads to legal liability.
• Example: In the case of Donoghue Vs Stevenson, a manufacturer was held responsible for a customer falling ill due to a contaminated product, showcasing a breach of duty.
• Defences to negligence include the absence of a legal duty, foreseeability of harm, and the standard of care based on the circumstances.
• Example: In the case of Pillutla Savitri Vs GK Kumar, the defendant was held liable for the direct consequences of their actions on the plaintiff.

Nuisance

• Nuisance involves interference with a person's land enjoyment, either as a public nuisance affecting the general public or a private nuisance affecting an individual landowner.
• Example: In the case of Fay Vs Prentice, a situation where rainwater damage occurred due to a neighbor's property projecting over the plaintiff's garden was considered a nuisance.
• Accepted defences to nuisance include prescriptive rights and statutory authority, which can absolve liability under tort law.

Trespass

• Trespass refers to direct interference with someone's land enjoyment through actions like battery, assault, false imprisonment, and unlawful detention.
• Example: In the case of Stanley Vs Powell, an incident involving injury caused by a bullet from a shooting party member was not considered a case of negligence.

Defamation

• Defamation involves damaging a person's reputation through slander (spoken) or libel (written/published) remarks.
• Example: In the case of Snm Abdi Vs Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, heavy damages were awarded for defamatory allegations made against a public figure.
• Defences to defamation include fair comment, truth, privilege, and public interest, with distinctions between absolute and qualified privilege.

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio

• This legal principle states that a person who commits a wrong cannot seek compensation for harm resulting from that wrong in the law of torts.
• Example: If an individual engages in unlawful behavior, they cannot claim damages for any resulting harm under this principle.

Conclusion

These represent various defenses against torts. Following the occurrence of a tort, the issue of the defendant's liability arises, considering whether their actions directly caused harm to the plaintiff and the extent of the damage. Quantifying this harm lacks an objective measure. Nevertheless, assessments of reasonable foresight and directness aid in gauging the remoteness of the damage. The contemporary perspective holds that the defendant, as the wrongdoer, is accountable for all injuries directly linked to their wrongful actions, regardless of foreseeability.