OVERVIEW OF GENERAL DEFENCES IN TORT LAW

Defences Explanation Case Laws Essential When can the Limitations

1. Volenti This defence Hall v. Firstly, the This defence can Firstly, this
applies when a Brooklands plaintiff be taken when the defence will not
Non Fit
person consents Auto racing knew the risk plaintiff is aware apply if the
Injuria Club was present.
to the infliction of the risks plaintiff was
of harm upon Secondly, the involved in an unaware of the
Padmavati v.
themselves, plaintiff activityand full extent of
Dugganaika
meaning they knowing the voluntarilyconsen the risk.
have no remedy risk is ts to participate, Secondly, in
under the tort present, absolving the rescue cases,
law to agreed to defendant of Haynes v.
suffer the
complain. This liability for any Harwood, the
harm
defence also harm that may defence of
applies in occur. volenti non fit
criminal law. injuria does not
apply when the
plaintif
voluntarily
encounters a
risk to rescue
someone from
an imminent
danger created
by the wrongful
act of the
defendant.
Consent must be For the defence Lakshmi The --- ---
free. of volenti non Ranjan v. plaintiff’s
fit injuria to be Malar consent must
available , it is Hospital Ltd. be given
necessary to freely and
show that the voluntarily,
plaintiff’s without any
consent to coercion or
suffer the harm undue
was given influence.
freely and was
not caused by

1|P a ge
 fraud,
compulsion,
mis-take or
under a
mistaken
impression.
Consent by fraud Consent R. v. The --- ---
obtained by Williams. defendant
fraud is not a must have
real consent made a false
and does not representatio
serve as a good n to the
defence. plaintiff. The
plaintiff must
have relied
on the false
representatio
n. The
plaintiff must
have suffered
damage as a
result of
relying on the
false
representatio
n.
Consent by Consent given Smith v. The plaintiff --- ---
Compulsion under Baker. must have
compulsion been
when the compelled to
person does not give consent
have freedom by the
of choice does defendant’s
not qualify for use of force
consent under or threats of
this defence. force. The
plaintiff must
have
reasonably
believed that
the defendant
would’ve
used force or
threats of

2|P a ge
 force if the
plaintiff did
not consent.
2. Plaintiff, This defence Bird v. The plaintiff If the plaintiff A wrongdoer is
the applies when Holbrook must be the themselves have not dientitled
the plaintiff wrongdoer. committed an from recovering
wrongdoe themselves is illegal or in tort “unless
r. the wrongdoer The plaintiff unlawful act and some unlawful
and, as a result, must have in the course of act or conduct
cannot take any suffered that act they on his own part
action for the injury as a suffered harm or is connected
injury sustained result of their injury then they with the harm
by them. It is own cannot claim suffered by him
based on the wrongdoing. compensation for as a part of
legal maxim such harm or same
“Exturpi causa injury. transaction”.
non oritur
actio”,
meaning “no
action arises
from an
immoral
cause”.
3. Inevitable This defence Stanley v. The event The defendant The defence of
applies when Powell. must be can use the inevitable
accident
an event occurs unexpected defence of accident is not
despite the Assam State and could not inevitable available if the
reasonable care Coop.,etc. have been accident when defendant could
and could have Federation reasonably they can prove have reasonably
been avoided. Ltd. v. foreseen or that the accident foreseen the
the defendant Anubha anticipated. that caused the event or if the
must prove that Singha plaintiff’s injury defendant
the accident The event was not could’ve
occurred must be foreseeable and it avoided the
despite taking unavoidable. was impossible accident by
reasonable for them to taking
precautions. prevent it despite reasonable
taking reasonable precautions and
care. care.
4. Act of Act of god is a Nicholls v. The The defence can This defence is
defence to a Marsland occurrence be taken in only available
God( Vis
tort that is must be due situations where when the event
Major) based on an Ramalinga to natural defendant can is caused solely
event that was Nadar v. forces. prove that the by the forces of
outside of Narayan event causing the nature, not
human control Reddiar. The damage was due influenced by
and could not occurrence to an act of nature human
have been Greeock must be , unforeseeable intervention and
3|P a ge
 prevented by Corporation extraordinary and couldn’t have that a
the exercise of v. Calidonian in nature and been prevented by reasonable
reasonable Railway. not the one any human person could
care. The event which can be intervention. not have
must be anticipated foreseen or
extraordinary and guarded guarded
in nature and against. against.
not one which
could be
anticipated.
5. Private The law Collins v. The use of One is permitted The force
permits the use Renison force must be to use reasonable employed must
defence
of reasonable justified. force in order to not be out of
force to protect Bird v. prevent harm to proportion to
one’s person or Hollbrrok The amount their person or the apparent
property. of force used property, only for urgency of the
Ramanuja must be the purpose of occasion.
Mudali v. reasonable. defence.
[Link]

Cockroft v.
Smith.
6. Mistake It is generally Consolidated The mistake Generally, Honest belief in
no defence to Co. v. Curtis must be mistake is not a the truth of a
an action for reasonable. defence to an statement is a
tort to plead action for tort but defence to an
that the act was The mistake here are some action for
done by must be one exceptions to this deceit.
mistake or of the fact, rule.
ignorance of not of law.
law, even
though there
may be no
negligence on
the part of the
defendant.

Mistake can be
of two types:
Mistake of law
Mistake of fact

It is based on
the maxim of
“ignorntia
juris non
excusant”,mea
ning,”ignoranc
e of law is not
an excuse”
7. Necessity This defence Cope v. The act Necessity as a The

4|P a ge
 justifies the Sharpe causing defence is interference
interference Leigh v. damage must invoked to justify with the
with the rights Gladstone have been an act causing plaintiff’s right
of one person done under damage, which is must be
in order to Carter v. necessity to done to prevent a reasonable in
prevent harm to Thomas prevent a greater harm to the
the society at greater evil. the public at large circumstances.
large. or to protect the
There must interest of the
be no other defendant.
means of
preventing
the greater
evil.
8. Statutory This defence Vaugham v. The statute The defence is This defence
applies when Taff Vale must available when applies only if
Authority
the act Rail Co. authorize the there is a statute the act is
complained of act that authorizes the expressly
is authorized by Hammer complained commission of authorized or
a statute and Smith Rly of. what would necessarily
the damage Co. v. Brand otherwise be a incidental to the
caused to the The damage tort. power
plaintiff is Smith v. caused must conferred by
within the London & be within the the legislature
scope of that Sothwestern scope of the and that the
authorisation, railway. statutory statutory
absolving the authorization. authority does
defendant of not empower a
liability. body to cause
damage.

5|P a ge