LEGAL THEORY

THE PLAINTIFFS ILLEGAL ACT AS A

DEFENSE IN ACTIONS OF TORT-
Harold S. Davis
 HARVARD LAW REVIEW
It is a student run organization which is running since 130
years. Their primary purpose is to publish journals of
legal scholarship. It is an independent one from the
Harvard Law school. It is an effective research tool for
lawyers and students. It publishes articles by judges,
professors and practitioners and reviews by experts
regarding books.

YALE LAW JOURNAL

It was established in 1891 by seven students of Yale law
school. The journal, which is published eight times per
year, contains articles, essays, features, and book reviews
by professional legal scholars as well as student-written
notes and comments. It is edited entirely by students.
18th VOLUME of HARVARD LAW
REVIEW
The article THE PLAINTIFFS ILLEGAL ACT AS
A DEFENSE IN ACTIONS OF TORT is published
in the 18th volume of Harvard Law Review which
was published in the year 1904-05.
This volume consists of articles written by various
others and book reviews.
Some of the articles in the volume are Receiverships
In Bankruptcy, Ancillary by Lee Max Friedman,
Possession By Albert S. Thayer and The Presidential
Succession Act of 1886 by Charles S. Hamlin
The expansion of the common law by Pollock, A
treatise on American Advocacy by Robbins, Studies
in Biblical law by Wigmore are some of the books
reviewed in this article.
HAROLD S. DAVIS

The article THE PLAINTIFFS ILLEGAL ACT AS A

DEFENSE IN ACTIONS OF TORT is written by
Harold S. Davis. He proposes that liability in torts
should be ascertained on the basis of causa sine qua
non. He was born in 1879 in Massachusetts. He resided
in California. His works in Torts in this article and
several others is very much appreciated in legal society.
He was also one of the editors of the 17th volume of the
Harvard Law Review. He passed away in 1979.
 THE PLAINTIFFS ILLEGAL ACT AS A
DEFENSE IN ACTIONS OF TORT
This article deals with the actions in which the plaintiff has some
contributory cause of the damage for which he was claiming.
plaintiff is not allowed to take action in cases where the unlawful
act done by him is the main or concurring cause of that damage
Two preliminary matters which are to be considered are
Negligence and illegality are just qualities which characterize
the acts and they never cause anything
The difference between the cause and the blame of an accident.
The cause of the accident may be because of the wrong of one
person but the blame may be on the other person whos action is
the active agency which caused the damage.
To decide who is liable it is seen that who act is the immediate
cause of damage-causa sine qua non.
The two main arguments against this were:
The unlawful act is not the main cause and the same result
would have occurred even if the act has been done at a time and
manner so it becomes lawful.
The doctrine of Bosworth v. Swansey( 10 Met.(Mass) 363)
cannot be logically correct because a person acting unlawfully
cannot recover even the act has no tendency to cause the result.
Finally the author gives that these cases can be divided into 3
kinds they are where plaintiff act is an active agency which
caused the damage, in this case he cannot have any action
against defendant. In other two cases where plaintiffs act has
played a passive role and if both of their acts are active agencies
of causing damage, then plaintiff can recover damages.
Cases Discussed: Banks v. Highland Railway and Smith v.
Boston & Maine Railroad