General Defences

 Inevitable accident
It means an unexpected injury and if the same accident could not have been stopped or avoided in spite of taking all due care
and precautions on the part of the defendant, then we call it an inevitable accident. It serves as a good defence as the defendant
could show that the injury could not be stopped even after taking all the precautions and there was no intent to harm the
plaintiff.
Brown v. Kendall, the dogs of the plaintiff and the defendant were fighting with each other. The defendant tried to separate
them and while doing so, he accidentally hit the plaintiff in the eye causing him some serious injuries. The incident was purely
an inevitable accident for which no claim could lie. So, the court held that the defendant is not liable for the injuries suffered
by the plaintiff as it was purely an accident.
Shridhar Tiwari v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation a bus of U.P.S.R.T.C. reached near a village where a cyclist
suddenly came in front of the bus and it had rained heavily so even after applying breaks the driver could not stop the bus as a
result of this the rear portion of the bus hit another bus which was coming from the opposite side. It was known that there was
no negligence on the part of both the drivers and they tried their best in avoiding the accident. This was held to be a case of
inevitable accident. The defendant i.e. U.P.S.R.T.C. was held not liable for this act.
Nitro-Glycerine case, a firm of carriers i.e. the defendants, in this case, was given a wooden case which was to carry from
one place to another. The contents of the box were unknown. There was some leakage in the box and the defendants took the
box to their office so that they can examine it. After taking out the box, they saw that it was filled with Nitro-Glycerine and
then it suddenly exploded and the office building which belonged to the plaintiffs got damaged. The defendants were held not
liable for the same as the same could not be foreseen.
 General Defences
 Act of God
• It serves as a good defence under the law of torts. It is also recognized as a valid defence.
• The defence of Act of God and Inevitable accident might look the same but they are different. Act of God is a kind
of inevitable accident in which the natural forces play their role and causes damage. For example, heavy rainfall,
storms, tides, etc.
Essentials required for this defence:
• Natural forces’ working should be there.
• There must be an extraordinary occurrence and not the one which could be anticipated and guarded against
reasonably.
 Private defence
The law has given permission to protect one’s life and property and for that, it has allowed the use of reasonable force
to protect himself and his property.
• The use of force is justified only for the purpose of self-defence.
• There should be an imminent threat to a person’s life or property.
For example, A would not be justified in using force against B just because he believes that some day he will be
attacked by B.
 General Defences
The force used must be reasonable and to repel an imminent danger.

• For example, if A tried to commit a robbery in the house of B and B just draw his sword and chopped his head, then this act of A would
not be justified and the defence of private defence cannot be pleaded.

For the protection of property also, the law has only allowed taking such measures which are necessary to prevent the danger.

• For example, fixing of broken glass pieces on a wall, keeping a fierce dog, etc. is all justified in the eyes of law.

• 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 , 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 Ramanuja Mudali v. M. Ganganhis 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.
 General Defences
 Necessity
Necessity is a valid defence to the claims for an act causing damage to person or property belonging to the plaintiff. The
action should have been done in orde to prevent a greater harm to the defendant, the community, or the defendant property
Public necessity- It is an action taken by public authorities or private individuals to avoid public damage or disaster. The
potential harm to society necessitates the destruction or use of private property for the greater good.
Example: Pulling down a house hit by fire to prevent spread of fire to nearby buildings.
Private Necessity- Private necessity arises when the defendant wants to protect his own interet It is not an absolute
defence unlike in the case of public necessity. The individual who used the land or property of another out of private
necessity must compensate the owner for any damages caused.
Example: A strong wind made a parachuting skydiver to make emergency landing in a farmer's field. The skydiver's
landing damaged rose cultivated in the field. The skydiver can invoke defence of private necessity for trespassing in the
farmer's fields. But he is liable to pay for the damage caused to the roses.
Necessity to assist another person- A person who takes action as a matter of necessity to assist another person without
his consent commits no wrong.
Example
• A man forcibly drags another from the path of an oncoming vehicle to save him from death.
• Surgeon performing an operation of an unconscious person to save his life.
 General Defences
 Statutory authority
An act done with legislature's authority is not a wrong. No action can be maintained for that act. Unless the
legislature had provided for compensation, the person who sustained loss has no remedy. The principle is private
right must yield in the interest of the general public
Example: Land Acquisition Act of 2013 gives the power to the state or union government to acquire a piece of
land from an individual. However, the Act provides for fair compensation to be paid in return for the land
acquired.
Judicial Acts
The Judges should have the liberty to function independently, free from fear of consequences. Hence, no action
lies against a judge for acts done or words spoken by him in exercise of his office.
The Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850 provides for non-liability to judicial officers, for official acts done in
good faith, and of officers executing warrants and orders.
Further Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 provides for additional protection to the judges.
Executive Staff
Valid orders of a public authority are good defences in an action on a tort committed by its officers in executing
them.
Eg: Execution of orders of courts of justice.
But officers are liable when the wrongful acts fall outside the authority given by the of Act of state.
 General Defences
 Mistake
The mistake is of two types:
• Mistake of law
• Mistake of fact
In both conditions, no defence is available to the defendant.
When a defendant acts under a mistaken belief in some situations then he may use the defence of mistake to
avoid his liability under the law of torts.
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.
In Consolidated Company v. Curtis, an auctioneer auctioned some goods of his customer, believing that the
goods belonged to him. But then the true owner filed a suit against the auctioneer for the tort of conversion. The
court held auctioneer liable and mentioned that the mistake of fact is not a defence that can be pleaded here.
 General Defences

 Exercise of common rights

The Constitution and statutes confers certain privileges to the State and its executive offic They can. In the
exercise of their duties interfere with certain rights of individuals without bei exposed to any liability for
damages. But it is to be taken note of that if the executive officers ag illegally or in improper exercise of their
rights, they can be held liable.

 Executive authority

Subject to the restriction that the rights must be exercised in good faith and in lawful manner every person has
complete freedom to exercise his common or ordinary rights, even though may cause some injury to others.