In the law of torts, the defendant may escape liability even after the plaintiff has successfully established all the elements of a tort. This is possible by invoking general defences under law of torts, which serve as shields against liability. These defences allow the defendant to argue that, despite the wrongful act, no liability should arise due to specific reasons recognized by law. Understanding these defences is crucial for law students and legal professionals, as they form the cornerstone of tortious litigation.
This article will provide a detailed explanation of the 8 general defences under law of torts, with case references, focusing on how each defence functions and how it can be applied in practice. The general defences discussed in this chapter are as follows :
- Volenti non fit injuria, or the defence of ‘Consent’
- Plaintiff, the wrongdoer.
- Inevitable accident.
- Act of God.
- Private Defence.
- Mistake.
- Necessity.
- Statutory Authority.
Contents of Article
Volenti Non Fit Injuria (Consent)
The Latin maxim Volenti non fit injuria means “to a willing person, no injury is done.” It essentially indicates that if someone willingly consents to the risk of harm, they cannot later claim compensation for injuries resulting from that risk. This is one of the most fundamental defences in tort, especially in cases involving voluntary participation in risky activities. he origin of this can be traced to the writings of Aristotle Roman jurists had recognised it. Later Bracton explained it in his De Legibus Angliae. The modern meaning is confined to the injuries sustained by persons.
Elements of Volenti Non Fit Injuria:
- Consent: The plaintiff must have given free and informed consent to the risk. This can be express (explicitly stated) or implied (assumed from conduct).
- Knowledge: The plaintiff must be aware of the nature and extent of the risk involved.
- Voluntariness: The consent must be voluntary and free from coercion, fraud, or undue influence.
Application in Law:
An often-cited case is Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club, where the plaintiff, a spectator at a car race, was injured due to a car crash. The court ruled that the plaintiff had impliedly consented to the inherent risks of motor racing by attending the event, thus absolving the defendants of liability.
However, the defence has limitations. Consent must not exceed the scope of what was agreed upon. For instance, in the context of medical treatment, a patient’s consent to surgery does not absolve a doctor from liability if the surgery was negligently performed. If the defendant’s act goes beyond what the plaintiff has consented to, this defence will not be available.
Rescue Cases and Exceptions:
An exception to this defence exists in rescue cases. When a person voluntarily undertakes a risk to save another from imminent danger, this defence cannot be used against them. In Haynes v. Harwood, a police officer was injured while trying to stop runaway horses. The court held that the defendant could not plead volenti non fit injuria because the plaintiff’s actions were those of a rescuer acting in an emergency.
Plaintiff the Wrongdoer (Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio)
The defence of ex turpi causa non oritur actio—meaning “no action arises from a wrongful cause”—is rooted in the principle that a person cannot claim damages if their own illegal or immoral act is at the foundation of the lawsuit. This is sometimes called the defence of plaintiff the wrongdoer. The defendant can use this defence to show that the plaintiff’s injury arose from their own illegal or immoral conduct.
Example Case: Bird v. Holbrook
In this case, the defendant placed a spring gun in his garden to deter trespassers but did not give any warning. The plaintiff, a trespasser, was injured by the spring gun. Despite the plaintiff being in the wrong (as a trespasser), the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff. The reasoning was that the defendant’s response (using a spring gun) was excessive and disproportionate to the plaintiff’s wrongdoing. Thus, the defendant was held liable because the force used was unreasonable.
This case illustrates that while the plaintiff may be engaged in wrongful conduct, the defendant cannot take advantage of the defence if their response is overly harsh or dangerous.
Inevitable Accident
An inevitable accident is one that occurs without fault on the part of the defendant, despite all reasonable precautions being taken. The essence of this defence is that the accident could not have been foreseen or avoided, even with the utmost care.
Case Law Example: Stanley v. Powell
In this case, both the plaintiff and the defendant were part of a pheasant shooting party. The defendant fired at a pheasant, but the shot ricocheted off a tree and struck the plaintiff, causing injury. The court ruled in favour of the defendant, holding that the injury was accidental and that all reasonable precautions had been taken. As such, the defendant was not liable for the injury
Key Elements:
- Unforeseeability: The event must have been unforeseeable.
- Unavoidability: Despite reasonable care, the accident could not have been avoided.
Distinction Between Inevitable Accident And Act Of God
The distinction between inevitable accident and act of God lies primarily in their causes. An act of God refers to extraordinary natural events, such as floods, tornadoes, or lightning, which occur without human intervention and cannot be avoided despite foresight and care. These are natural occurrences that are entirely outside human control. For example, a fire caused by lightning would be classified as an act of God.
On the other hand, an inevitable accident encompasses a broader range of incidents, including those that may involve human agency. An inevitable accident is one that could not have been prevented even with reasonable care and does not necessarily involve natural forces. For example, an accident caused by a runaway horse may fall under inevitable accident, provided a careful driver could not have prevented it.
As Dr. Winfield points out, while acts of God are more easily understood by laypeople as excuses for harm, inevitable accidents are more complex, often requiring investigation into human conduct to determine if the incident was truly unavoidable. Thus, all acts of God are inevitable accidents, but not all inevitable accidents are acts of God.
Act of God (Vis Major)
An Act of God refers to a natural event or force that is beyond human control, such as earthquakes, floods, or storms. If a defendant can prove that the damage was caused by an Act of God, they will not be liable for any resulting harm.
Essentials of Act of God:
- The event must be a natural force (e.g., storm, earthquake).
- The event must be unforeseeable and extraordinary.
- The event must be unconnected with any human agency.
Example: Nichols v. Marsland
In this case, the defendant had created artificial lakes on his land. An unprecedented heavy rainfall caused the lakes to overflow, which damaged the plaintiff’s property. The court held that the defendant was not liable as the extraordinary rainfall constituted an Act of God..
Private Defence
The defence of private defence allows a person to use reasonable force to protect themselves or their property from imminent harm. This defence is justified only if the force used is proportional to the threat.
Key Case: Bird v. Holbrook
In this case, the defendant set up spring guns to prevent trespassing but did not provide any warning. When the plaintiff trespassed, they were seriously injured by the spring gun. The court held that the force used by the defendant was excessive, and the defence of private defence was not applicable. The judgement emphasized that the force must be reasonable and proportionate to the threat faced.
For example, you cannot use deadly force to defend against a minor threat like a trespasser without malicious intent. The defence is only available when there is an imminent and significant threat to one’s safety or property.
Mistake
In tort law, mistake—whether of fact or law—is generally not a valid defence. A mistake of fact occurs when a person misunderstands or is unaware of a key fact, while a mistake of law refers to a misunderstanding of the legal principles involved. However, the courts typically hold individuals accountable for their actions, even if they are based on an honest mistake.
Key Points:
- Mistake of Fact: Even if a person mistakenly interferes with another’s rights, they can still be liable. For example, if someone enters another person’s land believing it to be their own, they are still guilty of trespass.
- Mistake of Law: Ignorance of the law is no excuse. A person cannot claim immunity from liability simply because they did not know their actions were illegal.
Mistake is not an acceptable defence in most tort cases because the focus is on the wrongful act itself, not the intent behind it. If a defendant wrongly believes they have a right to interfere with someone’s rights, they are still liable for any harm caused by their actions.
Necessity
The defence of necessity applies when a person causes harm to prevent a greater harm. In such situations, the action may be considered justifiable, even if it causes damage to another. The key principle behind this defence is that the harm caused is outweighed by the benefit of avoiding a greater evil.
Example: Cope v. Sharpe
In this case, the defendant entered the plaintiff’s land without permission to prevent a fire from spreading to a nearby estate. The court held that the defendant’s actions were justified under the defence of necessity, as the harm caused (trespass) was outweighed by the need to prevent a larger disaster.
Statutory Authority
When a defendant acts under the authority of a statute, they may be immune from liability. Statutory authority provides a complete defence, meaning that if the harm caused is incidental to the performance of a statutory duty, the defendant cannot be held liable, provided they follow the statutory guidelines correctly.
Example: Hammersmith Rail Co. v. Brand
The defendants were authorized by statute to build a railway line. The construction caused damage to the plaintiff’s land due to noise and vibration. The court held that the railway company was not liable, as they were acting within the bounds of their statutory authority
However, if the defendant acts negligently or beyond what the statute permits, they can still be held liable for any harm caused.
Conclusion
The general defences in tort serve as critical tools for defendants to avoid liability, even when a tort has been committed. Each defence—whether based on consent, accident, necessity, or statutory authority—offers different protections depending on the circumstances of the case. For law students and legal professionals, mastering these defences is essential for a comprehensive understanding of tort law. These defences not only prevent unjust liability but also balance the rights of both plaintiffs and defendants in civil litigation.