DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

SABBAVARAM,VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P.,INDIA

PROJECT TITLE:

GENERAL DEFENSES IN TORTS

SUBJECT :

TORTS

NAME OF THE FACULTY:

MS. B.V.S SUNEETHA

NAME OF THE STUDENT: ARUN KUMAR

ROLL NO.:23LLB023

SEMESTER:1st

1
 TABLE OF CONTENT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.......................................................................................................4

INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................6

SYNOPSIS................................................................................................................................7

GENERAL DEFENSES...........................................................................................................9

A. VOLENTI NON-FIT INJURIA: LEAVE AND LICENCE..............................................9

B. PLAINTIFF IS THE WRONGDOER.............................................................................14

C. INEVITABLE ACCIDENT.............................................................................................15

D. ACT OF GOD / VIS MAJOR..........................................................................................18

E. PRIVATE DEFENSE :.....................................................................................................20

F. NECESSITY :...................................................................................................................22

CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................23

2
 CERTIFICATE

I, Arun Kumar, hereby certify that the project submitted by me, titled "General defenses in
Torts," is an original and independent work. I conducted this research with the utmost
dedication, and all data, analysis, and findings are the outcomes of my own efforts. No
portion of this project has been plagiarized or duplicated from any other source, and all
sources used in it have been properly recognized and referenced.

Arun Kumar

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to express my heartfelt appreciation to my Torts Professor, Ms B.V.S. Suneetha, for her
essential aid and direction during the production of my project on 'GENERAL DEFENSES
IN TORTS'. Without her warmth and wisdom, this endeavour wouldn't have been feasible.
Her assistance and knowledge profoundly influenced the extent and depth of my
investigation.

I'm also very grateful to Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University for providing a
unique academic environment and research resources. The university library, with its wide
choice of books and research material, has been a treasure trove of knowledge for me.

I'd want to offer my thanks to the academic department as well for supporting
interdisciplinary learning and creating an intellectually interesting climate. Their commitment
to encourage inquiry and critical thinking has played a key part in my academic progress.

With heartfelt gratitude,

Arun Kumar

4
 ABSTRACT

The field of tort law has experienced changes and advancements, throughout history shaping
it into what it's today. The continuous evolution of tort law has paved the way for concepts
that have made holding individuals accountable for their actions possible. However there are
also principles in place to challenge claims for compensation. These defensive measures aim
to protect individuals who have been wrongly accused of liability. In terms these measures
are known as defenses in tort law.

Put simply 'Defenses in tort law' refer to laws that favor the defendant when all claims made
by the plaintiff are valid. These defenses are periodically revised to allocate responsibility for
actions. This helps uphold principles of justice while instilling a sense of deterrence.

This article delves into defenses, particularly general defenses. It explores topics such as
volenti non injuria (consenting to the harm) where the plaintiff is, at fault acts of nature or
unavoidable circumstances (act of God) self defense, mistakes, necessity and situations
involving authority. By discussing these themes and providing case examples this article aims
to educate readers on these aspects.

5
 INTRODUCTION

According to Winfield and Jolowics, the defenses are defined as follows:

“A claimant who fails to prove the required ingredients of the particular tort or torts on which
he relies will, of course, fall in his action. Even if he does prove these ingredients, however,
he may still fail if the defendant shows that he is entitled to rely upon some specific defense.
Some of these defenses are exclusive to particular torts. These defenses are called 'particular
defenses'. While other defenses are broader in scope and can be invoked by a defendant on a
more extensive scale as a defense to multiple torts. These defenses are called 'generic
defenses”1.

There are two sorts of defenses:

1. SPECIFIC DEFENSES: These are the defenses that apply to certain types of Torts. For
example, defenses such, as the defense of license or lawful excuse can be used in cases of
trespassing while the defense of criticism, that is fair can be invoked in defamation cases.

2. GENERAL DEFENSES: These defensive measures can be employed to counter a range of

torts.

 Consent: According to the principle of "volenti non fit injuria," a person cannot seek
compensation if they willingly choose to endure the harm.

 Plaintiff is the wrongdoer: The principle of "Ex turpi causa non-action" forms the
foundation for this defense. It asserts that no legal action can arise from an immoral cause.

 Inevitable accident: Even if the defendant took reasonable care on his part, the injury could
not have been averted. This is the case of an inevitable accident.

 Private defense: In order to protect himself or his property or even others, a person can use
force to defend himself. But there should be reasonable perception of risk and also the force
used to defend himself should be proportional to the threat.

1
Tyagi, A. (2014, May 28). Act of God as a defense in Law. Gnlu.
https://www.academia.edu/4846951/Act_of_God_as_a_defense_in_Law

6
 Act of god: When a sudden and unforeseen accident occurs due, to forces, beyond anyone's
control it is often referred to as an act of nature.

 Necessity: In extreme situations where someone's actions, under extreme circumstances,

lead to harm that individual may be able to argue the defense of necessity.

SYNOPSIS

OBJECTIVES

1) Understanding the types of defenses that exist in tort law.

2) Informing readers about defenses they can use to protect themselves from any liability
related to torts.

3) Examining multiple case laws to gain insights, into how defenses are applied in different
legal systems when it comes to torts.

4) Offering a judicial perspective, on general defenses used in tort cases.

LITERATURE REVIEW

1) The researcher has extensively studied publications such, as "The Law of Torts" by
Ratanlal and Dheerajlal to grasp the concept of defenses.

2) The researcher has extensively explored blogs and publications to create an outline, for the
project.

3) The researcher referred to numerous articles and journals to gather information.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researcher has utilized both secondary sources of information. This study incorporates a
combination of the doctrinal approach coupled with an explanatory approach.

SCOPE OF STUDY

7
This research has focused on understanding the concept of defense and its application, in the
system.

SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

This study assists the reader in comprehending the concept of general defenses and how these
are utilized in real-life scenarios on a day-to-day basis.

MODE OF CITATION

The Oxford style of citation has been used in this work.

8
 GENERAL DEFENSES

A. VOLENTI NON-FIT INJURIA: LEAVE AND LICENCE

The underlying principle of the maxim is the idea of avoiding causing harm. Essentially it
means that if someone willingly accepts or agrees to suffer then no harm is done. In situations
involving torts if a person intentionally brings harm upon themselves they have no recourse.
This defense becomes relevant when the plaintiff voluntarily consents to endure harm and is
therefore not permitted to complain about it. Their consent acts as a defense. Whether consent
is expressed or implied for this defense to be applicable the actions causing injury must not
exceed what was agreed upon.
In Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club, “the plaintiff was a spectator at an automobile race
that was staged at Brooklands. The track was owned by the defendant's company. During the
race, due to the collision of two racing vehicles, one of the cars was flung towards the
spectators, injuring the plaintiff. The court concluded the defendant was not liable as the
plaintiff freely took the risk of such injuries as the danger is inherent in the activity”2.

In Padmavathi v. Dugganaika, “in this case, two strangers took a lift in a jeep when the driver
was filling petrol. Suddenly amid the bolts which link the front wheel to the axle, one of them
gave out and the jeep toppled. The two strangers who were taking the lift were pushed out,
one of them got injuries while the other one died. It was held that both the driver and the
master were not liable as it was a mere accident and both the strangers had voluntarily
climbed into the jeep resulting volenti non-fit injuria.”3

In Wooldridge v. Sumner, “the plaintiff was standing at the edge of the arena to take some
shots. the plaintiff was terrified by the defendant's horse rushing and was gravely injured as
he fell into the horse’s course. The defendants were not liable in this instance since sufficient
care and precautions were exercised.”4

2
B. (2023, February 2). Case brief of Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club (1932) 1 KB 205
- BareLaw. BareLaw.in. https://www.barelaw.in/case-brief-of-hall-v-brooklands-auto-racing-
club-1932-1-kb-205/
3
Law of Torts - Chapter 5. (n.d.). http://student.manupatra.com/Academic/Abk/Law-of-
Torts/Chapter5.htm
4
Teacher, Law. (November 2013). Wooldridge v Sumner. Retrieved from
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/wooldridge-v-sumner.php?vref=1
9
In the case of Thomas v. Quatermaine, “the plaintiff was working as an employee in the
brewery of the defendant. While trying to remove a lid from a boiling tank of water which
was struck, he had to apply an extra pull to lift it. The extra tug that he applied generated
force which pushed the plaintiff into another container containing scorching liquid. He
subsequently received some major injuries due to the incident. It was determined that the
defendant was not liable as the injuries caused to the plaintiff are attributable to the conduct
he committed freely and the danger was evident to him. This was a wrong decision and the
error was corrected.”5

In Illot v. Wilkes, “there were spring weapons present on the defendant's land and the plaintiff
got injured when he was trespassing on the defendant's land. He deliberately and voluntarily
took the danger and then incurred the injuries for the same. The defendant was not held
accountable in the case.”6

There are various requirements to avail of this defense:

1. The consent must be free: To mount this defense it is crucial to establish that the plaintiff's
consent was free and voluntary. If the consent was obtained through deceit or force the
defense loses its merit. The consent should specifically pertain to the defendant's actions. In
cases where an individual is unable to provide consent, such, as due, to incapacity the
guardian of that person must give their approval instead.

In the matter of Lakshmi Rajan v. Malar Hospital, “a 40-year-old married woman was
suffering from a bulge in her breast. This pain is nowhere related to her uterus. She saw that
her uterus was removed after the operation. This was done without any intimation to her. The
hospital authorities were ruled accountable as the patient's agreement was obtained for the
operation of the lump and not to the excision of the uterus.”7

5
Law of Torts - Chapter 5. (n.d.).
http://student.manupatra.com/academic/abk/law-of-torts/Chapter5.htm

6
Law of Torts - Chapter 5. (n.d.).
http://student.manupatra.com/academic/abk/law-of-torts/Chapter5.htm
10
Consent gained via fraud:

Obtaining permission, through deception cannot be considered consent and will not be an
effective defense.

In Hegarty v. Shine, “this case stated that simple hiding of information so as to vitiate consent
will not be construed as fraud. Here the plaintiff instituted an action of assault against her
paramour who infected her with sexual diseases. But the action failed as based on the concept
' from turpi causa non oritur actio' i.e. no action originates from an immoral cause. it was
determined that mere revelation of facts will not be deemed as fraud.”8

In R. v. Wiliams, “a music teacher under the pretence of strengthening her throat and boosting
her voice, raped a 16-year-old girl. He was declared guilty as the girl entirely misunderstood
the nature of the offence performed and gave consent for the same thinking that it was a
medical surgery which would improve her voice.”9

Consent acquired under compulsion

In situations where someone is compelled to do something and doesn't have the freedom to
make their choices, there can be no genuine consent. This is particularly relevant, in master
and servant relationships, where the servant is obliged to follow the instructions of their
master. In this scenario, the concept of volenti non-fit injuria (consenting to harm) doesn't
apply because the servant lacks free will. However, if the servant performs any actions,
without being forced then this defense can be utilized.

7
Lakshmi Rajan v Malar Hospitals Ltd. and Another on 13 June 1997 - Judgement -
LawyerServices. (1997, June 13). https://lawyerservices.in/Lakshmi-Rajan-Versus-Malar-
Hospitals-Ltd-and-Another-1997-06-13
8
Williams, G. (1942, March 1). The Legal Effect of Illegal Contracts. Cambridge Law
Journal; Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008197300116095

9
R v Williams (Owen Richard) [1923] 1 KB
340https://ipsaloquitur.com/criminal-law/cases/r-v-williams-owen-richard/ .

11
2. Sometimes just because someone has knowledge, about a danger doesn't mean they
automatically give consent. To apply this principle two important factors need to be
considered;

1) The person should be aware that there is a risk involved.

2) They must have knowledge of the risk. Willingly accept the possibility of getting hurt.

In Smith v. Baker, “the plaintiff, a workman was using a drill to cut a rock. To shift the rocks
from one side to the other, a crane was employed and each time they moved the rocks, they
were passing from above the plaintiff's head. While he was completing his duties, a stone
from the crane fell on the plaintiff and injured him. Although the plaintiff usually was aware
of the risk, there was carelessness on the part of the employer as they did not inform the
plaintiff about the reoccurring threat. It was held that mere knowledge of danger is not
sufficient and the maxim volenti non fit injuria was not applied rendering the defendants
accountable.”10

3. Negligence of the defendant:

The defendant must not be negligent to invoke this defense. If the plaintiff willingly accepts
any risks the defendant cannot be held responsible.

In Slater v. Clay Cross Co. Ltd, “when the plaintiff was going along a tunnel owned by the
defendant, the plaintiff incurred injuries due to the careless behaviour of defendant's worker.
It was known that that the tunnel was utilized by public and all the cars were given
instructions to hoot and drives slowly whenever they enter a tunnel. But the defendant's
driver failed to do so. The defendants were deemed accountable for the accident.”11

Limitations of the notion of volenti non-fit injuria:

10
Smith v Charles Baker & Sons, [1891] UKHL 2 | United Kingdom House of Lords,
Judgment, Law, casemine.com. (n.d.). https://www.casemine.com.
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8ca60d03e7f57ecd755
11
A. (2020, June 2). Exceptions To The Principle Of Volenti Non Fit Injuria. Desi Kaanoon.
https://desikaanoon.in/exceptions-to-the-principle-of-volenti-non-fit-injuria/
12
The scope for application of volenti non-fit injuria has been reduced in rescue situations and
by the Unfair Contract Terms Act, 1977 (England).

In some exceptional cases even if the plaintiff has willingly accepted harm they can still
continue with their legal actions, against the respondent.

a) Rescue cases:

In rescue situations there is an exception, to the application of fit injuria. If the plaintiff
encounters any risk while trying to save someone from danger caused by the defendant they
cannot rely on fit injuria as a defense..

Haynes v. Hardwood, “is a key judgement on the point. In this instance, a two-horse vehicle
was left unattended by the defendant's servant. A boy hurled a stone at the horse and the horse
due to fright started rushing, presenting a significant risk to the lady and children on the road.
A police officer who was on duty witnessed this and managed to halt the horses but in the
process of doing so, he incurred some injuries. The defendants were deemed accountable as it
was a case of rescue.”12

b) Unfair Contract Terms Act, 1977 (England):

If someone attempts to avoid or reduce their liability, for negligence through a contract term
or notice it limits the rights of that person.

B. PLAINTIFF IS THE WRONGDOER

In the realm of contract law there exists a principle that states that no court will provide
assistance to anyone whose claim is based on an illegal action. Similarly in tort law there is a
principle known as "Ex turpi causa non oritur actio," which essentially means that no legal
action can arise from a immoral cause. For instance if the plaintiffs action involves an illegal
contract they will not be successful, in their case.

12
Bhargavi, K. (2022, May 16). Case Analysis: Haynes V/s Hardwood. The Legal Vidya.
https://www.thelegalvidya.in/case-analysis-haynes-v-s-hardwood, Haynes v. Harwood (1935)
1 K.B. 146

13
The defendant could potentially employ this defense in tort law to evade accountability by
arguing that at the time of their actions the plaintiff was also engaged in some form of
immoral behavior..

In Bird v. Holbrook, “the defendant put spring weapons in his garden without any notice
warning of the same. The plaintiff was entitled to claim damages sustained due to the spring
firearms.”13

In Pitts v. Hunt, “an eighteen-year-old rider encouraged his companion who was sixteen years
old to drive quickly in an inebriated state. They met with an accident and in the accident, the
younger child died and the older guy got injuries. The older boy initiated action against the
families of the deceased for reimbursement for injuries. The court refused the claim for
compensation as here the plaintiff himself is the culprit.”14

C. INEVITABLE ACCIDENT

According to Chief Justice Shaw of the Massachusetts Supreme Court:

“ Inevitable accident is an accident such as the defendant could not have avoided by the use
of kind and degree of care necessary to the exigency and in the circumstances he was
placed”15

13
Law of Torts - Table of Cases. (n.d.). http://student.manupatra.com/academic/abk/law-of-
torts/TOC.htm, Bird v. Halbrook, (1828)
14
Pitts v Hunt. (n.d.). http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Pitts-v-Hunt.php
15
Team, L. (n.d.). justification of torts. Lawyersclubindia.
https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/JUSTIFICATION-OF-TORTS--253.asp
14
According to Greene, M.R., an Inevitable incident is described as:

"One out of an ordinary course of things, something so unusual as not to be looked for by a
person of ordinary prudence."

From this, we may tell that inevitable accidents are ones which cannot be prevented by
regular care, caution and ability. It is an accident that is physically unavoidable.

There are two cases into which inevitable accidents can be divided:

1. Events that occur due, to the forces of nature without any involvement or influence, from
humans or other causes are commonly referred to as 'Acts of God'.

2. Incidents that are partially or entirely attributed to factors beyond the realm of forces.

Some noteworthy instances involving defenses of 'inevitable accident' are:

1) Fardon v. Harcourt Rivington :

Facts: The person accused, along, with his dog was driving in a car. He parked the car. Closed
the door unintentionally leaving his dog inside. The dog was normally calm and quiet.
However, when the person who is now suing him walked by the car the dog suddenly began
jumping and barking vigorously causing the glass panel of the car window to shatter. As a
result of this incident fragments of glass entered the plaintiff's eyes. Required medical
attention. Consequently, he filed a lawsuit against the person, for damages.

Judgment: The defendant was not held accountable. The judge stated that:

“This is such an extremely unlikely event that I do not think any reasonable man could be
convicted of negligence if he did not take into account the possibility of such an occurrence
and provide against it either by not leaving the dog in the car or by tying it up so that it could
not reach the window. people must protect against reasonable probabilities, but they are not
against extraordinary possibilities.”16

16
D. (2022, May 13). Fardon v Harcourt-Rivington: 1932 - swarb.co.uk. swarb.co.uk.
https://swarb.co.uk/fardon-v-harcourt-rivington-1932/

15
2) Nitro-glycerine case :

Facts: Here the accused individuals are a transportation company. They received a container
without knowing its contents. Were requested to deliver it to its intended destination. During
the course of transportation the contents of the container started to leak. Consequently they
brought the case to their rented office space, which was leased from the plaintiff. A staff
member opened the container unknowingly containing nitroglycerine resulting in an
explosion. Unfortunately all those present lost their lives and substantial damage was caused
to the building. The landlords filed a lawsuit, against the defendants seeking compensation,
for the damages incurred.

Judgement: “It was found that defendants were not liable as they were not obligated to know
the contents of the items supplied to them for delivery without the presence of suspicion.
There was no knowledge of the contents and no negligence on the part of the defendants. So
they were not liable for damages.”17

3) Shridhar Tiwari v. U.P State Road Transport Corporation

Facts: Bus 'A' operated by the U.P.S.R.T Corporation was, on its way, to a village when an
unexpected cyclist appeared in front of it. Since it was raining and the road was wet the bus
slid when the driver attempted to avoid hitting the cyclist. Consequently the rear section of
Bus 'A' collided with a portion of another bus.

Judgement: “The defendant corporation was not held accountable as at the time of the
collision, both the buses were being operated at normal speed. The accident occurred in spite
of the care taken by both the drivers.”18

So it seems that claiming an accident, as a defense is, about denying responsibility rather than
actually defending oneself. Absolute liability only becomes relevant if the inevitable accident
can be categorized as an "Act of God."

17
The Nitro-Glycerine Case, 82 U.S. 524 (1872). (n.d.). Justia Law.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/82/524/
18
2 (1986) ACC 393, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/862784/

16
 D. ACT OF GOD / VIS MAJOR

The act of God serves as a defense, in tort law in cases of strict liability. This defense has its
roots in the Rylands v. Fletcher case. Continues to hold validity. It proves useful when the
defendant has no control over the event that caused the damage, which's a result of forces. As
such the defendant cannot be held responsible, for damages caused by these natural forces.In
the words of Winfield and Jolowics,

“Where an act is caused (harmful to a party) directly by natural causes without human
intervention in circumstances which no human foresight can provide for and against and of

17
which human prudence is not bound to recognize the possibility, the Act of God as defense
can be applied.”19

An Act of God refers to an occurrence that differs from an accident because it results from the
forces of nature such, as rainfall, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions or tidal waves. Even though
an Act of God can be considered a type of accident there are two factors for this defense to
apply;

1. Natural forces must be present.

2. The event must be extraordinary. One that could not have been predicted with reasonable
care taken into consideration.

Important cases are:

1). Nichols v. Marsland:

Facts: The defendant constructed lakes by blocking natural lakes on his property. Due, to a
rainfall, which was said to be the most significant in human recollection the barriers of the
lakes collapsed, resulting in four of the plaintiffs bridges being washed away. The plaintiff
filed a lawsuit against the defendant seeking compensation, for the damages caused by their
actions.

Judgement: “As the rainfall was exceptionally severe and could not be expected, the
defendants were deemed not guilty as it was an Act of God.”20

2). Kallulal v. Hemchand :

Facts: On a day of 2.66 inches of rainfall, a wall of a building fell. Due to this collapse, the
two children of the respondent were killed.

Judgement: “The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the defense of Act of God could not
be availed as the rainfall on that day was not of extraordinary nature and it could be
anticipated and guarded against.”21

3). Ramalinga Nadar v. Narayan Reddiar:

19
A. (2019, March 21). General Defenses In Torts - Academike. Academike.
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/general-defenses-in-torts/
20
Nichols v Marsland - Case Summary - IPSA LOQUITUR. (2019, November 3). IPSA
LOQUITUR. https://ipsaloquitur.com/tort-law/cases/nichols-v-marsland/
18
“An angry mob looted all that was in the plaintiff's lorry aggressively. Therefore the plaintiff
submitted a case before the court. The court concluded that the act of god cannot be used and
the plaintiff was compensated.”22

E. PRIVATE DEFENSE :

The general maxim that, "necessity knows no law" and "it is the primary duty of a man to
first help himself" is the basis for the right of self-defense. The right of private defense is the
right to protect oneself or others or one's property or other's property from the unlawful
aggressor. The basis for this right is according to the principle that the first duty of any man is
that when the state is not available, he can help himself even by taking the law into his own
hands.

“When there is an apprehension of danger to the body or property of any person, the right of
private defense starts from this point onwards even if the offence may not have taken place.

21
(Kallulal and Another V. Hemchand and Others, Madhya Pradesh High Court, Judgment,
Law, casemine.com, n.d.)

Ramalinga Nadar v. Narayan Reddiar [1971] (kerala high court)

22

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1443992/

19
This apprehension of danger must be instantaneous and not farfetched. This right of private
defenses continues for as long as the apprehension of danger to a person's body or property
persists. He can, if necessary, inflict violence on another in the process of private defense” 23.
However once the danger or threat, to a person or property subsides the right also ceases to
exist. The fundamental principle governing the right of defense is that the force employed in
self defense or protecting ones property should be both necessary and reasonable. However
there are no fixed guidelines for determining what constitutes reasonable force. It relies upon
the judgment of an individual facing a threat, to their well-being or belongings.

Types of private defense :

1. Private defense to the body

2. Private defense to property which encompasses both movable and immovable

Important case laws in private defense:

1. In Bird v. Holbrook, “the defendant fitted up spring weapons in his garden without
displaying any notice regarding the same and the plaintiff who was a trespasser incurred
injuries due to their automatic fire. The court concluded that this act of the defendant is not
justified and the plaintiff is entitled to seek compensation for the harm sustained by him.” 24

2. Similarly, in Ramanuja Mudali v. Gangan, “a landowner i.e. the defendant had constructed
a network of live wires on his land. The plaintiff in order to reach his own land sought to
cross his land around 10 p.m. He suffered a shock and sustained some significant injuries
owing to the live wire and there was no notice regarding it. The defendant was deemed guilty
in this instance because the usage of live wires is not justified in the case.”25

3. In Collins v. Renison, “the plaintiff went up a ladder for nailing a board on a wall in the
defendant’s garden. The defendant tossed him off the ladder and when sued he testified that

Justice K T Thomas & M A Rashid, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal,The Indian Penal Code(33rd edn,
23

2016) 554.

24
Law of Torts - Table of Cases. (n.d.). http://student.manupatra.com/academic/abk/law-of-
torts/TOC.htm, 130 eng. Rep. 911 (C.P. 1825)
25
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/45777/, ramanuja mudali v. gangan air 1984 mad 103

20
he only gently pushed him off the ladder and nothing else. It was held that the force
employed was not reasonable as the defense.”26

F. NECESSITY :

If someone causes harm in order to prevent a bigger problem even if they intended to cause
harm it may not be considered actionable. It's important to distinguish between necessity and
private defense. In cases of necessity, harm is done to an innocent person whereas in defense
harm is done to the wrongdoer who initiated the situation. Necessity is also different, from an
inevitable accident. In cases of necessity, harm is caused intentionally whereas in an accident
despite one's effort to avoid it harm still occurs.

Case laws for necessity:

26
Ltd, A. A. (2023, May 17). R v Collins - 1973. www.lawteacher.net.
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/r-v-collins.php

21
1). In Leigh v. Gladstone, “it was found that the forcible feeding of a person who was hunger-
striking in a prison acted as a good defense for the tort of violence.”27

2). In Cope v. Sharpe, “the defendant invaded the plaintiff’s property to stop the spread of fire
in the neighbouring area where the defendant’s master had the hunting rights. Since the
defendant’s act was to prevent larger injury he was deemed not guilty for trespass.” 28

3). In the case of Carter v. Thomas, “ the defendant who entered the plaintiff’s land premises
in good faith to extinguish the fire, at which the fire extinguisher employees were already
working, was judged guilty of the charge of trespass.”29

4). In Kirk v. Gregory, “A’s sister-in-law hid some valuables after the death of A from the
chamber where he was lying dead, considering that to be a more safe place. The jewellery
was stolen from there and a complaint was brought against A’s sister-in-law for trespass to the
jewellery. She was deemed guilty of trespass as the step she took was unreasonable.”30

CONCLUSION

The article primarily discusses the significance of defenses in order to prevent liability, in tort
cases. When studying torts it is equally important to understand the defenses that can be
utilized to avoid liability. These defenses can be seen as a collection of justifications that
individuals can use to escape liability. The availability of these defenses for defendants is as
crucial as the remedies to injured parties. In instances defendants are innocent. These
defenses prove extremely valuable, for them. However applying these general defenses
necessitates a comprehension of their principles.

27
L. (2022, October 24). Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts. LawBhoomi.
https://lawbhoomi.com/defences-to-torts-necessity/, 1995, Leigh v Gladstone (1909)
28
D. (2022, July 31). Cope v Sharpe (No 2): CA 1912 - swarb.co.uk. swarb.co.uk.
https://swarb.co.uk/cope-v-sharpe-no-2-CA-1912/.
29
https://casetext.com/case/carter-v-thomas-2,Carter v. Thomas ,527 F.2d 1332.
30
Profile, V. (2021, December 30). Kirk v Gregory ( 1876 ) 1 Ex D 55.
https://tortmadeeasy.blogspot.com/2021/12/kirk-v-gregory-1876-1-ex-d-55.html, Profile, V.
(2021, December 30). Kirk v Gregory ( 1876 ) 1 Ex D 55.
22