Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts | Law Optional Notes for UPSC PDF Download

Introduction

• Inevitable accident is an unavoidable situation regardless of the fact that there was an exercise of a reasonable amount of care with prudent skill and caution.
• Let us understand Inevitable Accident by breaking it up into two parts:
  • Accident
  • Inevitable
• An Accident can be defined as something that caused harm or injury and was totally unexpected.
• Inevitable means a situation that was bound to happen even though all precautionary measures and reasonable care were taken.
• Hence, an inevitable accident is an unavoidable situation regardless of the fact that there was an exercise of a reasonable amount of care with prudent skill and caution.
• As observed by Greene, M.R., an accident is "one out of the ordinary course of things, something so unusual as not to be looked for by a person of ordinary prudence".
• For example: Rajni, the defendant, lived in Lara colony. She had a beautiful terrace with a lot of flower pots decorated. There was a net all around her terrace to avoid the pots from falling on someone's head. One fine day, a rat bit off the net from a portion that was not visible to the eyes. A pot fell from the terrace on a stray dog that happened to pass underneath Rajni's bungalow. Due to the hit on its head, the dog got furious and went and bit Sumita, the plaintiff who was another resident of the Lara colony because of which Sumita suffered injuries and therefore, sued Rajni. Here the defendant could take up the defense of an inevitable accident because it was neither foreseeable nor under her control, and moreover, all the precautionary measures were also adopted by Rajni.
• From the above example, it is clear that to take up the defense of an inevitable accident, the defendant needs to establish two points as follows:
  • All due care was adopted by the defendant
  • The defendant could not have reasonably foreseen it.

Inevitable accidents can be divided into two categories

• Those caused by basic accidents: The forces of nature which are not connected with the agency of man or any other cause; and
• Those which originate either from the agency of man or any other cause; The whole or part of the agency of the human being, whether in acts of commission or omission, failure to act or in any other cause independent of the agency of the natural forces.

Acts of God come under the first category of Inevitable Accident. For example: In the case of Rajni and Sumita, suppose the pot didn't fall due to the hole in the net and the pot didn't fall on the dog. Instead, it fell on Sumita due to an unusual earthquake in the region in spite of taking all due care and diligence by Rajni who already had the fencing done. Here it was an act of God which could not have been foreseeable because the earthquake was unusual in the area and hence could not have been avoided. So it was an inevitable accident. Had the earthquake been a known and usual phenomenon, then Rajni could have been made liable because she should have known that the earthquake can damage the fencing and the pot can fall on anyone's head and cause injuries. Hence, lack of proper care.

Cases Related to Unavoidable Accidents

• In the Nitro-glycerine case, the defendants, a company of carriers, obtained a wooden case for transportation. Unknown to them, the case contained nitro-glycerine, a highly explosive substance. When it was discovered that the contents were leaking, the defendants' servant attempted to open the case for inspection, resulting in an explosion that killed people and destroyed the building. The landlord, who owned the premises leased by the defendants, sued for damages sustained by parts of the building let to other tenants as well as to the defendants.
• The court held that the defendants were not liable for the damages unless they had knowledge of the dangerous nature of the contents or acted negligently. Since there was no evidence of their knowledge or negligence, they were not held responsible for the harm caused by the explosion.
• In Brown v. Kendal, the plaintiff and the defendant's dogs were fighting, and the defendant attempted to separate them by beating them. In doing so, the defendant accidentally stabbed the plaintiff in the eye, causing a serious injury. The court held that the defendant's actions were lawful and proper, and any injury caused was the result of a pure mistake. Therefore, the defendant was not liable for damages.
• In Fardon v. Harcourt-Rivington, the defendant left his car on the street with his dog inside. The dog, which was usually calm, began barking and leaping around, causing a glass panel to break. A fragment of the glass hit the plaintiff's eye, resulting in its removal. The court held that the plaintiff could not recover damages as leaving a car with a dog inside was not inherently risky, and the accident was deemed improbable. Therefore, there was no duty to take precautions against such an unlikely event, and the defendant was not liable for the injury caused.
• In Holmes v. Mather, the defendant's servant was guiding horses on a public highway when they were startled by a barking dog, causing them to run away. Despite the servant's efforts to control the horses, they collided with the plaintiff on the highway, injuring them. The court held that the plaintiff had no grounds for action against the servant as he had done his best under the circumstances to control the horses, and the accident was deemed unavoidable.
• In Stanley v. Powell, the defendant, a member of a shooting team, accidentally shot a pheasant, and one of the shots ricocheted off a tree branch, fatally injuring the plaintiff. The court ruled that there was no liability on the defendant as the incident was deemed an inevitable accident. Although criticized, the decision was supported on the grounds of volenti non fit injuria, meaning the plaintiff voluntarily exposed themselves to the risk of injury by participating in the shooting activity.
• In Coop. of Assam State, etc. Ltd. v. Smt. Federation v. Anubha Sinha, a fire broke out in the premises leased by the defendant due to faulty electrical wiring. Despite the tenant's requests to the landlord to repair the wiring, no action was taken. The court held that the tenant could not be held responsible for the fire as it was deemed an inevitable accident caused by the landlord's negligence in maintaining the premises.
• In Shridhar Tiwari v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, a bus swerved to avoid hitting a cyclist, resulting in a collision with another bus. The court ruled that the accident was unforeseen and occurred despite reasonable care by both bus drivers. Therefore, the defendant company was not held responsible for the accident on the grounds of negligence.
• In Padmavati v. Dugganaika, a jeep carrying two strangers gave them a lift, but soon afterwards, a bolt connecting the right front wheel to the axle gave way, causing a serious accident. The court held that the accident was a result of a mechanical failure and not due to any negligence on the part of the driver or the owner of the jeep.
• In National Coal Board v. Evans, contractors hired by a county council damaged an underground cable belonging to the plaintiff's predecessors while excavating. The court held that the accident was an unforeseeable consequence of the plaintiff's predecessors' actions and that the contractors could not be held liable for the damage caused.
• The cases mentioned highlight the principle that the defense against unforeseen events is valid only when the accident is truly unpredictable and unavoidable. In S. South Arcot Vedantacharya v. Department of Highways, the Supreme Court ruled that negligence could not be excused solely on the grounds of heavy rain and flooding. The Department of Highways was found negligent for not reinforcing culverts and bridges against foreseeable heavy rain and floods, leading to the culvert collapse and the resulting accident.
• Similarly, in cases like the bursting of long-drawn-out tires or the separation of truck springs without evidence of adequate maintenance, the defense of unavoidable accident cannot be invoked if negligence is involved. In Oriental Fire & General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Raj Rani, the court held the defendants liable as they failed to demonstrate that appropriate measures were taken to prevent the technical faults that led to the accident.
• These cases emphasize that while some accidents may seem unforeseeable, negligence cannot be overlooked if reasonable precautions were not taken to prevent them. Defendants cannot escape liability by attributing accidents to sudden events without demonstrating that proper measures were in place to mitigate such risks. Thus, the defense against unavoidable accidents is valid only when all reasonable preventive measures have been exhausted, and the accident remains truly unforeseeable and unavoidable.

Conclusion of Inevitable Accident Doctrine

• In instances of genuinely uncommon and unforeseeable situations for drivers, the unavoidable accident doctrine can serve as a valuable defense. However, the effectiveness of this defense depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. The key consideration revolves around whether the driver could have reasonably altered their driving behavior to entirely prevent the accident. If there were no reasonable changes the driver could have made, the unavoidable accident doctrine becomes a successful defense for the defendant.
• On the other hand, if the driver had the opportunity to modify their driving, react differently, or take actions within their control to mitigate the circumstances, this defense may not apply. While the optimal approach is always to drive with the utmost care and minimize foreseeable risks, this is not always feasible. Hence, the unavoidable accident doctrine exists to address situations where certain accidents are genuinely beyond a driver's capacity to prevent or foresee.