TOPIC: GENERAL DEFENSES OF TORTS.

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF: PROF KEVIN TAURO.

SUBMITTED BY: -
NAME: RAJRATNA GROROBAJI DONGARGAONKAR
CLASS: T.Y.B.L.S.L.L.B
ROLL NO:20514
D.O.S: 14/10/2022

1
 INDEX

SR.NO TOPIC PG.NO

1. INTRODUCTION 3
2. GENERAL DEFENSES OF TORTS 4
3. VOLUNTARY NON-FIT INJURIA 5
4. PLAINTIFF IS THE WRONGDOER 13

5. INEVITABLE ACCIDENT 15
6. ACT OF GOD 17
7. PRIVATE DEFENCE 19
8. MISTAKE 21
9. NECESSITY 23
10. STATUTORY AUTHORITY 25

11. CONCLUSION 26
12. BIBLIORAPHY 27

2
 INTRODUCTION

The term Defense in general consensus of law means safeguarding or resisting

oneself or someone from any act which might been committed by someone and
that act is not in accordance with law. In torts it is referred only to arguments
offered by the defendant that, if accepted, would permit the defendant to escape
from liability even if all of the elements of the tort in which the claimant sues are
present. To abridge the precise term used in torts is General Defenses which
means when a plaintiff brings an action against the defendant for a tort committed
by that person, that person will be held liable for it, if there exist all the essential
ingredients which are required for that wrong. But there are some defenses
available to the accused which can be used by accused to absolve himself from
the liability arising out of the wrong committed.
Every Suit in the Court of Law involves two parties, one who has filed a suit
against another and the other who is defending himself against such suit. In Law
of Torts, such parties are called Plaintiff and Defendants. After the suit is filed by
the plaintiff alleging that defendant has committed a tort, it is for the plaintiff to
prove that his legal rights have been violated by the wrongful actions of the
defendant and once all essentials are met and his guilt is proved, the only way the
defendant can save himself and get absolved of liability is through the General
Defenses that are available in Law of Torts which have evolved over time.

3
 GENERAL DEFENSES OF TORTS

When a plaintiff takes action against the defendant for a tort committed by the
defendant, he shall be held liable for it, if all the necessary material necessary for
that wrong are present. But there are some defences available to the defendant by
which he can free himself from the liability of the wrong done. These are known
as general defences under the law of torts. Therefore, in some cases, the defendant
can avoid liability by taking the plea of the general defences available under law
of torts. General defences are considered a collection of defences or excuses that
the defendant undertakes to flee liability charged, but if the action has undergone
a selected set of conditions that deals with the defences under the law of torts.

The term “defence” has several meanings in the context of tort and has caused
much confusion due to the general failure by courts and commentators to clarify
its intended meaning.1

The general defences under the law of torts are given as follows: –

1. Voluntary Non-Fit Injuria or Defence of ‘Consent’

2. Plaintiff is the Wrongdoer
3. Inevitable accident
4. Act of God
5. Private Defence
6. Mistake
7. Necessity
8. Statutory Authority

1
LAW OF TORTS by Dr. S. R. MYNENI PUBLISHED BY S. P. GOGIA

4
 VOLUNTARY NON-FIT INJURIA OR DEFENCE OF
‘CONSENT’

In case, a plaintiff voluntarily suffers some harm, he has no remedy for that under
the law of tort and he is not allowed to complain about the same. The reason
behind this defence is that no one can enforce a right that he has voluntarily
abandoned or waived. Consent to suffer harm can be express or implied.

Some examples of the defence are:

 When you yourself call somebody to your house you cannot sue your
guests for trespass;

 If you have agreed to a surgical operation, then you cannot sue the
surgeon for it; and

 If you agree to the publication of something you were aware of, then
you cannot sue him for defamation.

 A player in the games is deemed to be ready to suffer any harm in the

course of the game.

 A spectator in the game of cricket will not be allowed to claim

compensation for any damages suffered.

5
For the defence to be available the act should not go beyond the limit of what has
been consented.

1. In Hallv. Brooklands Auto Racing Club, the plaintiff was a spectator of a

car racing event and the track on which the race was going on belonged to
the defendant. During the race, two cars collided and out of which one was
thrown among the people who were watching the race. The plaintiff was
injured. The court held that the plaintiff knowingly undertook the risk of
watching the race. It is a type of injury which could be foreseen by anyone
watching the event. The defendant was not liable in this case.

2. In Padmavati v. Dugganaika, the driver of the jeep took the jeep to fill
petrol in it. Two strangers took a lift in the jeep. The jeep got toppled due
to some problem in the right wheel. The two strangers who took lift were
thrown out of the jeep and they suffered some injuries leading to the death
of one person.

The conclusions which came out of this case are:

 The master of the driver could not be made liable as it was a case of a
sheer accident and the strangers had voluntarily got into the vehicle.

 The principle of Volenti non fit injuria was not applicable here.

6
THE CONSENT MUST BE FREE:

1. For this defence to be available it is important to show that the consent of

the plaintiff was freely given.

2. If the consent was obtained under any compulsion or by fraud, then it is

not a good defence.

3. The consent must be given for an act done by the defendant.

4. For example, if you invite someone to your house for dinner and he enters
your bedroom without permission then he will be liable for trespass.

5.
In the case of Lakshmi Rajan v. Malar Hospital, a 40 year old married woman
noticed a lump in her breast but this pain does not affect her uterus. After the
operation, she saw that her uterus has been removed without any justification.
The hospital authorities were liable for this act. The patient’s consent was taken
for the operation not for removing the uterus.

 If a person is not in a condition to give consent then his/her guardian’s

consent is sufficient.

7
CONSENT OBTAINED BY FRAUD:

 Consent obtained by fraud is not real consent and does not serve as a
good defence.

In Hegarty v. Shine, it was held that mere concealment of facts is not considered
to be a fraud so as to vitiate consent. Here, the plaintiff’s paramour had infected
her with some venereal disease and she brought an action for assault against him.
The action failed on the grounds that mere disclosure of facts does not amount to
fraud based on the principle ex turpi causa non oritur actio i.e. no action arises
from an immoral cause.

 In some of the criminal cases, mere submission does not imply consent
if the same has been taken by fraud which induced mistake in the
victim’s mind so as to the real nature of the act.

 If the mistake induced by fraud does not make any false impression
regarding the real nature of the act then it cannot be considered as an
element vitiating consent.

CONSENT OBTAINED UNDER COMPULSION:

 There is no consent when someone consents to an act without free will
or under some compulsion.

 It is also applicable in the cases where the person giving consent does
not have full freedom to decide.

 This situation generally arises in a master-servant relationship where the

servant is compelled to do everything that his master asks him to do.

8
  Thus, there is no applicability of this maxim volenti non fit injuria, when
a servant is compelled to do some work without his own will.

 But, if he himself does something without any compulsion then he can

be met with this defence of consent.

MERE KNOWLEDGE DOES NOT IMPLY ASSENT:

For the applicability of this maxim, the following essentials need to be present:

 The plaintiff knew about the presence of risk.

 He had knowledge about the same and knowingly agreed to suffer harm.
In the case of Bowater v. Rowley Regis Corporation, a cart-driver was asked to
drive a horse which to the knowledge of both was liable to bolt. The driver was
not ready to take that horse out but he did it just because his master asked to do
so. The horse, then bolted and the plaintiff suffered injuries. Here, the plaintiff
was entitled to recover.

In Smith v. Baker, the plaintiff was an employer to work on a drill for the purpose
of cutting rocks. Some stones were being conveyed from one side to another using
crane surpassing his head. He was busy at work and suddenly a stone fell on his
head causing injuries. The defendants were negligent as they did not inform him.
The court held that mere knowledge of risk does not mean that he has consented
to risk, so, the defendants were liable for this. The maxim volenti non fit injuria
did not apply.

But, if a workman ignores the instructions of his employer thereby suffering

injury, in such cases this maxim applies.

9
NEGLIGENCE OF THE DEFENDANT:

In order to avail this defence it is necessary that the defendant should not be
negligent. If the plaintiff consents to some risk then it is presumed that the
defendant will not be liable.

For example, when someone consents to a surgical operation and the same
becomes unsuccessful then the plaintiff has no right to file a suit but if the same
becomes unsuccessful due to the surgeon’s negligence then in such cases he will
be entitled to claim compensation.

In Slater v. Clay Cross Co. Ltd., the plaintiff suffered injuries due to the negligent
behaviour of the defendant’s servant while she was walking along a tunnel which
was owned by the defendants. The company knew that the tunnel is used by the
public and had instructed its drivers to give horns and drive slowly whenever they
enter a tunnel. But the driver failed to do so. It was held that the defendants are
liable for the accident.

LIMITATIONS ON THE DOCTRINE’S SCOPE:

The scope of the maxim volenti non fit injuria has been curtailed in the following
cases:

 Rescue cases

The Unfair Contract Terms Act, 1977

In these cases, even if the plaintiff has done something voluntarily but he cannot
be met with the defence of ‘consent’ i.e. volenti non fit injuria.

10
Rescue cases

 When the plaintiff voluntarily comes to rescue someone from a danger

created by the defendant then in such cases the defence of volenti non
fit injuria will not be available to the defendant.
In Haynes v. Harwood, the defendants’ servant left two unattended horses in a
public street. A boy threw a stone on the horses due to which they bolted and
created danger for a woman and other people on the road. So, a constable came
forward to protect them and suffered injuries while doing so. This being a rescue
case so the defence of volenti non fit injuria was not available and the defendants
were held liable.

However, if a person voluntarily attempts to stop a horse which creates no danger

then he will not get any remedy.

UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ACT, 1977 (ENGLAND):

The Unfair Contract Terms Act, 1977, limits the right of a person to exclude his
liability resulting from his negligence in a contract.

Negligence Liability

 Sub-section 1 puts an absolute ban on a person’s right to exclude his

liability for death or personal injury resulting from the negligence by
making a contract or giving a notice.

 Sub-section 2 is for the cases in which the damage caused to the plaintiff
is other than personal injury or death. In such cases, the liability can only
be avoided if a contract term or notice satisfies the reasonability criteria.

11
  Sub-section 3 says that a mere notice or agreement may be enough for
proving that the defendant was not liable but in addition to that some
proofs regarding the genuineness of the voluntary assumption and
plaintiff’s consent should also be given.

VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE:

 Volenti non fit injuria is a complete defence but the defence of

contributory negligence came after the passing of the Law Reform
(Contributory Negligence) Act, 1945. In contributory negligence, the
defendant’s liability is based on the proportion of fault in the matter.

 In the defence of contributory negligence, both are liable – the defendant

and the plaintiff, which is not the case with volenti non fit injuria.

 In volenti non fit injuria, the plaintiff knows the nature and extent of
danger which he encounters and in case of contributory negligence on
the part of the plaintiff, he did not know about any danger.2

2
INTRODUCTION TO THE LAW OF TORTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION BY Dr. AVTAR SINGH AND
PROF. HARPREET KAUR

12
 PLAINTIFF IS THE WRONGDOER

There is a maxim “Ex turpi causa non oritur actio” which says that “from an
immoral cause, no action arises”.

If the basis of the action by the plaintiff is an unlawful contract, then he will not
succeed in his actions and he cannot recover damages.

If a defendant asserts that the claimant himself is the wrongdoer and is not entitled
to the damages, then it does not mean that the court will declare him free from
the liability but he will not be liable under this head.

In the case of Bird v. Holbrook, the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages
suffered by him due to the spring-guns set by him in his garden without any notice
for the same.

In Pitts v. Hunt, there was a rider who was 18 years of age. He encouraged his
friend who was 16 years old to drive fast under drunken conditions. But their
motorcycle met with an accident, the driver died on the spot. The pillion rider
suffered serious injuries and filed a suit for claiming compensation from the
relatives of the deceased person. This plea was rejected as he himself was the
wrongdoer in this case.

13
According to Sir Frederick Pollock, when the plaintiff himself is a wrongdoer, he
is not disabled from recovering in tort unless some unlawful act or conduct on his
own part is connected with the harm suffered by him as part of the same
transaction. So, it is important to look as to what is the connection between the
plaintiff's wrongful act and the harm suffered by him. If his own act is the
determining cause of the harm suffered by him, he has no cause of action.
However, if the wrongful act of the defendant and not of the plaintiff, is the
determining cause of the accident, the defendant will be liable.3

3
LAW OF TORTS by Dr. S. R. MYNENI PUBLISHED BY S. P. GOGIA

14
 INEVITABLE ACCIDENT

An inevitable accident is a general defence in the law of torts. The inevitable accident
which is also known as unavoidable accident says that a person cannot be held liable
for an accident which was not foreseeable despite all care and caution taken from his
side. Act of God can also be sometimes classed in inevitable accidents.

For example: – If ‘A’ was driving a car and he was all in his senses and took all due
care, but suddenly due to mechanical part failure his car loses his balance and hits a
passer-by. In this case, the driver would not be liable as he took all precautions from his
side. The accident was unavoidable.

Accident means an unforeseen injury and if the same accident could not have been
prevented or avoided in spite of taking all due care and precautions on the part of the
respondent, then we call it an inevitable accident. It serves as a good defence because
the defendant can show that even after taking all precautions, the injury could not have
been prevented and that there was no intention to cause harm to the plaintiff.

For the defendant to use the defence of inevitable accident, it is necessary to show two
things: –

 There was no intention on the part of the defendant.

 And, the collision could not have been avoided with reasonable care.

15
In Stanley v. Powell, the defendant and the plaintiff went to a pheasant shooting. The
defendant fired at a pheasant but the bullet after getting reflected by an oak tree hit the
plaintiff and he suffered serious injuries. The incident was considered an inevitable
accident and the defendant was not liable in this case.

In Assam State Coop., etc. Federation Ltd. v. Smt. Anubha Sinha, the premises which
belonged to the plaintiff were let out to the defendant. The tenant i.e. the defendant
requested the landlord to repair the electric wirings of the portion which were defective,
but the landlord did not take it seriously and failed to do so. Due to a short circuit, an
accidental fire spread in the house. No negligence was there from the tenant’s side. In
an action by the landlord to claim compensation for the same, it was held that this was
the case of an inevitable accident and the tenant is not liable.

In Padmavati v. Dugganaika, the driver of the jeep took the jeep to fill petrol in it. Two
strangers took a lift in the jeep. The jeep got toppled due to some problem in the right
wheel. The two strangers who took lift were thrown out of the jeep and they suffered
some injuries leading to the death of one person.

The conclusions which came out of this case are:

 The master of the driver could not be made liable as it was a case of a sheer
accident and the strangers had voluntarily got into the vehicle.

 The principle of volenti non fit injuria was not applicable here.

 It was a case of a sheer accident which no one could foresee. 4

4
INTRODUCTION TO THE LAW OF TORTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION BY Dr. AVTAR SINGH AND
PROF. HARPREET KAUR

16
 ACT OF GOD

An act of god is an unforeseeable natural phenomenon. Act of god is something

which involves no human agency, which is not realistically possible to guard
against, which is due directly and exclusively to natural causes and which could
not have been prevented by any amount of foresight, plans, and care.

In the law of torts, an Act of God may be asserted as a type of intervening cause,
the lack of which would have avoided the cause or diminished the result of
liability (e.g., but for the earthquake, the old, poorly constructed building would
be standing). However, foreseeable results of unforeseeable causes may still raise
liability. For example, a bolt of lightning strikes a ship carrying volatile
compressed gas, resulting in the expected explosion. Liability may be found if
the carrier did not use reasonable care to protect against sparks regardless of their
origins. Similarly, strict liability could defeat a defense for an act of god where
the defendant has created the conditions under which any accident would result
in harm. For example, a long-haul truck driver takes a shortcut on a back road
and the load is lost when the road is destroyed in an unforeseen flood.

The act of god serves as a good defence under the law of torts. It is also recognized
as a valid defence in the rule of ‘strict liability’. Act of God and defence of
inevitable accident may look the same but they are different. Some extraordinary
occurrence of natural forces is required to plead the defence under the law of torts.
The act of god is a kind of inevitable accident in which natural forces play their
part and cause harm. For example, heavy rains, storms, tides, etc.

The essentials required for this defence are: –

 Must be the work of natural forces;

 Must be an extraordinary event, not an event that can be reasonably
predicted and avoided.

17
WORKING OF NATURAL FORCES:

In Ramalinga Nadar v. Narayan Reddiar, the unruly mob robbed all the goods
transported in the defendant’s lorry. It cannot be considered to be an Act of God
and the defendant, as a common carrier, will be compensated for all the loss
suffered by him.

In Nichols v. Marsland, the defendant created an artificial lake on his land by

collecting water from natural streams. Once there was an extraordinary rainfall,
heaviest in human memory. The embankments of the lake got destroyed and
washed away all the four bridges belonging to the plaintiff. The court held that
the defendants were not liable as the same was due to the Act of God.

OCCURRENCE MUST BE EXTRAORDINARY:

Some extraordinary occurrence of natural forces is required to plead the defence

under the law of torts.

In Kallu Lal v. Hemchand, the wall of a building collapsed due to normal rainfall
of about 2.66 inches. The incident resulted in the death of the respondent’s
children. The court held that the defence of Act of God cannot be pleaded by the
appellants in this case as that much rainfall was normal and something
extraordinary is required to plead this defence. The appellant was held liable.5

5
LAW OF TORTS by Dr. S. R. MYNENI PUBLISHED BY S. P. GOGIA

18
 PRIVATE DEFENCE

Private defence is a right available to every citizen of India to protect themselves

from any external force that can result into any harm or injury. The law has
permitted the protection of one’s life and property and for that, it has permitted
the use of reasonable force to protect himself and his property. The right can be
extended by an accused in some circumstances but only to a certain degree, which
would not invalidate the right of private defence.

 Use of force is justified for the purpose of self-defence only.

 There must be an imminent threat to a person’s life or property.

While exercising this right one thing should be taken into consideration that the
right of private defence can only be exercised if there is no time to call the police
or no help can be provided by the state authorities in the given time i.e. aid from
the state is not available. Any unlawful act committed by any person in course of
self defence is not considered as an offence and does not, therefore, give rise to
any right of private defence in return.

For example: – ‘A’ would not be justified in using force against ‘B’ because he
believes that he will someday be attacked by ‘B’. The force used must be
reasonable and to avert an imminent danger.

For example: – If ‘A’ tried to rob B’s house and ‘B’ simply drew his sword and
beheaded him, then B’s act would not be justified and private defence could not
be argued.

Section 97 of IPC states that every citizen is having this right subject to certain
restrictions (mentioned in sec 99) to defend his own body or body of any other
person, against; any offence affecting to the human body; the property
whether immovable or movable, of himself or of any other person, against any

19
act, which is an offence falling under the definition of robbery, theft, mischief,
criminal trespass or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or
criminal trespass.

In Bird v. Holbrook, the defendant fixed up spring guns in his garden without
displaying any notice regarding the same and the plaintiff who was a trespasser
suffered injuries due to its automatic discharge. The court held that this act of the
defendant is not justified and the plaintiff is entitled to get compensation for the
injuries suffered by him.

Similarly, in Ramanuja Mudali v. M. Gangan, a landowner i.e. the defendant had

laid a network of live wires on his land. The plaintiff in order to reach his own
land tried to cross his land at 10 p.m. He received a shock and sustained some
serious injuries due to the live wire and there was no notice regarding it. The
defendant was held liable in this case and the use of live wires is not justified in
the case.6

6
INTRODUCTION TO THE LAW OF TORTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION BY Dr. AVTAR SINGH AND
PROF. HARPREET KAUR

20
 MISTAKE

In general, Mistake, whether of fact or of law, is no defence to the action of tort.

When any person wilfully interferes with the rights of others, he has no defence
that he believed that his actions were justified. Likewise, no one under a mistake
of fact defames someone or enters anyone’s property. When a defendant acts
under wrongful belief in some or the other situation, he can plead a defence of
fault.

There are two types of a mistake: –

 Mistake of Law: – No defence in any civil and criminal case. When a

person commits any tort and asks for the defence that he does not know the
law, that does is considered as a defence. Court thinks that every person
knows the law of the country that’s why the mistake of law is not
considered as a defence in IPC as well as in tort. The mistake of law is not
considered as a defence. When a person commits any tort and asks for the
defence that he does not know the law, the court does not considers it as a
defence. For example, ‘A’ murdered ‘B’, in this case, ‘A’ cannot apply for
the defence of mistake of law i.e., he was not aware of crime/law related to
the murder.

 Mistake of Fact: – A mistake of fact as a defence applies to various crimes.

If the criminal defendant can prove that he does the act due to a mistake of
fact or misunderstood some fact that negates an element of the crime. For
example, ‘A’ takes his dog to the park every day so that he can play off
leash with other dogs. One day, ‘A’ lost sight of his dog for a few minutes.
Well, he relocated the dog and walked towards the home. At home, he
noticed a mark on the dog and came to the conclusion that it is not his dog,

21
 he mistakenly took another person’s dog with him. Here, ‘A’ will not be
liable because he gets the defence of mistake of facts.

In general, Mistake, whether of fact or of law, is no defence to the action of

tort. When any person wilfully interferes with the rights of others, he has no
defence that he believed that his actions were justified. Likewise, no one under a
mistake of fact defames someone or enters anyone’s property. If it is repeatedly
told to an individual that it is not his property, he could not take it. It would no
longer be a reasonable defence for him. For example, ‘A’ and ‘B’ are playing
games on a laptop in B’s house. At the time ‘A’ leaves, he took the laptop from
the table, believing that it was his laptop. ‘B’ repeatedly told ‘A’ that it was not
his property and belonged to him. If then also ‘A’ leaves with B’s laptop, in that
situation ‘A’ cannot take the defence of mistake of fact.

Defence of mistake of fact can be excusable but the defence of mistake of law is
not excusable. It is assumed that every person knows the law of the country he
resides in. if a person says, I do not know the law and does the act, it is not
excusable. For example, ‘A’ is 17 years old went to buy wine from the wine shop.
‘B’, the owner of the shop honestly believed that ‘A’ was above 18 years of age
and as per law 18+ person can legally have wine. ‘C’, a policeman caught ‘B’ for
illegally selling wine to a child. Here ‘B’ can take advantage of the mistake of
fact because he honestly believes ‘A’ to be 18+.

In Morrison v. Ritchie & Co, the defendant by mistake published a statement that
the plaintiff had given birth to twins in good faith. The reality of the matter was
that the plaintiff got married just two months before. The defendant was held
liable for the offence of defamation and the element of good faith is immaterial
in such cases.7

7
LAW OF TORTS by Dr. S. R. MYNENI PUBLISHED BY S. P. GOGIA

22
 NECESSITY

The doctrine of necessity states that if an act is done and it causes harm but it is
done in good faith in order to prevent harm, the person who does such an act is
not liable. This is so provided that the harm caused due to an act done in necessity
should not be intentional in nature. If an act is done to prevent further harm, even
if that act was intentional, is not actionable and serves as a good defence. It should
be distinguished from personal defence and an unavoidable accident.

Necessity is a defence to both the criminal law and the civil law, that is, if an
action was ‘necessary’ to prevent a greater harm, that can be used to avoid both
criminal and civil liabilities. Necessity is defined under Section 81 of the Indian
Penal Code as “Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to
prevent other harm. Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with
the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal
intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or
avoiding other harm to person or property.”

The following points should be considered: –

 In the case of personal defence, the plaintiff himself is guilty of causing

injury.
 Damage is done intentionally, when necessary, whereas in case of
inevitable accident, damage occurs in spite of all efforts to avoid it.

It is essential to show the presence of the following to prove the necessity as

defence: –

 The damage caused was less than the harm that would have occurred
otherwise;

23
  The person reasonably believed that his actions were necessary to prevent
imminent harm;
 There was no practical alternative available for avoiding the harm;
 The person did not cause the threat of harm in the first place.

In Leigh v. Gladstone, it was held that the forcible feeding of a person who was
hunger-striking in a prison served as a good defence for the tort of battery.

In Cope v. Sharpe, the defendant entered the plaintiff’s premises to stop the
spread of fire in the adjoining land where the defendant’s master had the shooting
rights. Since the defendant’s act was to prevent greater harm so he was held not
liable for trespass.

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 extinguishing
workmen were already working, was held guilty of the offence of trespass.8

8
https://legalpaathshala.com/general-defences-under-law-of-torts/

24
 STATUTORY AUTHORITY

Statutory authority means authority which has been derived directly from the
legislature, and any person working under the statutory authority has caused harm to
the other person then that will not come under any wrong and no action can be taken on
that.

If an act is authorized by an act or statute, it is not actionable, even if it would otherwise

constitute a tort. This is an If an act is authorized by any act or statute, then it is not
actionable even if it would constitute a tort otherwise. It is a complete defence and the
injured party has no remedy except for claiming compensation as may have been
provided by the statute. Immunity under the statutory right is given not only for apparent
harm but also for accidental damage.

Even if under normal circumstances that act would have amounted to tort, but if there
is statutory authority that act would be not considered under tort. Although for that
particular act if there is provision for compensation that can be provided to the person,
otherwise not. This statutory authority gives the power to the state and its authority to
do act for the welfare and while doing if some harm is caused to any person then also,
they will be immune from that particular act.

The authority given by a statute can be of two types: –

 Absolute Authority: – In this, there is no liability if the nuisance or some other

harm necessarily results.
 Conditional Authority: – It means that the same is possible without nuisance or
any other harm.

In Vaughan v. Taff Valde Rail Co., sparks from an engine of the respondent’s railway
company were authorized to run the railway, set fire to the appellant’s woods on the
adjoining land. It was held that since they did not do anything which was prohibited by
the statute and took due care and precaution, they were not liable.9

9
https://lawessential.com/all-blogs/f/general-defences-in-tort

25
 CONCLUSION

This article is to emphasize the important role played by General Defences in

avoiding one’s liability in torts. While learning about tort it is necessary to learn
about General Defences in the law of Tort. General defences are a set of ‘excuses’
that you can undertake to escape liability. In order to escape liability in the case
where the plaintiff brings an action against the defendant for a particular tort
providing the existence of all the essentials of that tort, the defendant would be
liable for the same. It mentions all the defences which can be pleaded in cases
depending upon the circumstances and facts.

Similar to the remedies available to aggrieved parties, the importance of Defences

for alleged parties for an important part of any law. Many a times, the defendant
are innocent and victim of circumstances such that liability arises for their action
after all essentials are met in Torts law. The General Defences in Law of Torts
for an important part in this law which help the defendant to get absolved of any
form of liability that may arise. For their proper application in individual cases, a
proper understanding of such defences is important.

26
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS:
1. LAW OF TORTS by Dr. S. R. MYNENI PUBLISHED BY S. P.
GOGIA
2. INTRODUCTION TO THE LAW OF TORTS AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION BY Dr. AVTAR SINGH AND PROF. HARPREET
KAUR

WEBLIOGRAPHY:
1. https://legalpaathshala.com/general-defences-under-law-of-torts/

2. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4469-conceptual-
study-of-law-of-torts-and-general-defences.html

3. https://lawessential.com/all-blogs/f/general-defences-in-tort

27