Skip to main content

Defences against tortious liability

 What are General Defences in Torts?DEFENCES AGAINST TORTIOUS LIABILITY


 

When a plaintiff brings an action against the defendant for a particular tort or violation of legal right, resulting in legal damages, and successfully proves the essentials of a tort, the defendant is held liable.

However few exceptions are there in which the defendant can plead some defences which can help him in absolving from liabilities.

Private Defence

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.

Essentials

Imminent Danger

There should be an immediate threat over the life or property of the defendant or another person’s property in which there is no time to report to the nearest authority. If the defendant is not able to contact that specific authority, then he can start the private defence.

Proportional Force

The defendant should apply a reasonable force. It should not be in excess of what is required.

Eg. If a thief breaks into the defendant’s personal property and tries to injure the defendant by beating him with a rod, then the defendant should tackle the thief using proportional force. If he is using a shotgun, then he can fire it on thief’s legs instead of his chest/forehead or it would be unreasonable.

 

Necessity

‘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 defence.

Essentials

  • When the defendant acts to avoid a significant risk of harm.

  • His causing of harm should be justified.

 

Necessity

‘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 defence.

Essentials

  • When the defendant acts to avoid a significant risk of harm.

  • His causing of harm should be justified.

 

 

Act of God

A very unusual act or an event which is the result of the natural forces such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, droughts, etc. is coined as Act of God or ‘Vis major’. It is beyond human imagination and could not be prevented by human intervention.

Essentials

  • The act should result from a natural force.

  • No human intervention.

  • Extraordinary in nature.

 

Statutory Authority

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.

Volenti Non Fit injuria

In volenti non fit injuria, if a plaintiff has consented to a wrongful act with free content, either express or implied, under no pressure of fraud or coercion, with voluntary acceptance of risk, then he has no right to sue the defendant. Also, there should be a duty on behalf of others.

 

 

 

 

 

 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more