Justifications/ General Defences in Tort

An act under some condition may appear wrongful or tort, although in absence of this condition, act is said to be justified or excused.

The justification immune the wrong doer from liability. This condition will justify our excuses a tort is divided into two categories

• Firstly, excuse justifies a specific tort is specific defence
• Second, those conditions will justify a tort, which is general is general defence

Example of specific defence - rule of immunity, which limit to rule of liability.
of general defenced - defence of consent, excuse to any tort

There are mainly 14 general defences.

I. Act of State

Act of State means an act done by the Government (State) in the exercise of its sovereign powers against:

• a foreign State,
• a foreign sovereign, or
• a foreign citizen (alien).

Such acts are considered acts of the sovereign Government and cannot ordinarily be challenged in a court of law as a tort.

In simple words, when the Government performs an act as part of its sovereign authority in matters relating to foreign affairs, war, or national security, it is called an Act of State.

An Act of State is an act of the Government done in the exercise of sovereign powers against another State or a foreign citizen, for which no action in tort can generally be brought in municipal courts.

For an act to be considered an Act of State, the following conditions must exist:

• 1. The act must be performed by the Government or its authorised officers.
• 2. It must be done in the exercise of sovereign powers.
• 3. It must relate to foreign affairs, war, diplomacy, or national security.
• 4. It must be directed against a foreign State or foreign citizen.
• 5. The act should be authorised or subsequently ratified by the Government.

II. Judicial Act

In English law no action lies for action done or word spoken by judge during exercise of his office, even if the act may be malicious or act done, may not be honest exercise of his office.

The Act of judicial immunity is founded on the principle of public benefit, so that judges are at Liberty and can exercise their functions independently without any fear.

The remedy for judicial corruption is criminal prosecution or removal of judge. But never call to defend his Judgement

The immunity guaranteed to judicial officers have been extended to quasi-judicial authority. They enjoy such principle with respect to functions they provide.

In Indian law, same as English law. Indian law also provides immunity protection to judges to protect their liberty so they can perform their duty without any fear.

Judicial officer act 1850. Under this act, no judge, magistrate, collector or other person acting judicially can be sued in judicial code.

The judge’s protection act 1985. act enacted by Parliament to provide additional protection to judges and other acting judiciary. Section 3 of this act states, no court should entertain any civil or criminal proceeding against a person who is or was a judge for act or word done or spoken while functioning is duty.

Quasi-judicial are partially judicial not exactly a judicial body.
For example, bar council acts as a judge when the complaint is against advocate medical counsel acts as a judge when there is a complaint against a doctor.

A judicial body does not have absolute protection. They have to listen to the both parties and follow the principle of natural justice and act in, good faith and necessity.

III. Executive Act

An executive officer who commits a tort in direct obedience of Public Authority Civil or military is not liable to an action in tort

unless such immunity is provided to officers, public administration would not be possible.

IV. Administrative Act

An Administrative Act is an act performed by government departments, administrative authorities, or public officials while carrying out their official administrative duties under the authority of law.

When such acts are performed within the scope of legal authority, in good faith, and without negligence, they serve as a general defence in the law of torts.

In simple words, if a public authority performs its lawful administrative functions properly and someone suffers inconvenience or loss, the authority is generally not liable in tort.

An Administrative Act is an official act performed by a government authority or public servant in the discharge of administrative functions under legal authority. Such acts are protected from tortious liability if they are done lawfully, honestly, and within the limits of the authority granted by law.

For an Administrative Act to be a valid defence:

• 1. The act must be performed by a government department or public authority.
• 2. It must be done while performing official administrative duties.
• 3. It must be authorised by law.
• 4. It must be performed in good faith.
• 5. There should be no negligence, malice, or abuse of power.

V. Parental or Quasi Parental

The exercise of force or restrain punishment for act done by child, by his parents Pupil by his teacher lunatic by his custodian gives no cause of action.

Because the action is done with purpose of correcting what is wrong in child, the authority of a teacher is same as parent, because when a parent places child with teacher. He gives all his authority to him and it is necessary for welfare of child

The authority is not limited only to school, but also extend. While on the way to and from the school.

VI. Authority of Necessity

Authority of Necessity is a general defence in the law of torts. It allows a person to interfere with another person's rights without consent when such interference is reasonably necessary to prevent a greater harm or to save life or property.

The law recognizes that, in emergencies, a person may have to act immediately for the benefit of another. Such acts are legally justified if they are done honestly and in good faith.

In simple words: When immediate action is necessary to protect someone's life or property, the law excuses the act even if consent cannot be obtained

Authority of Necessity means the legal authority to do an act that would otherwise be a tort, when the act is reasonably necessary to prevent a greater danger or injury and is done in good faith.

Essential Elements For this defence to apply:

• 1. There must be a real and immediate emergency.
• 2. The act must be necessary to prevent greater harm.
• 3. It should be impossible or impracticable to obtain the person's consent.
• 4. The act must be done honestly and in good faith.
• 5. Only reasonable and necessary force or action should be used.

VII. Statutory authority

Statutory Authority means the authority or power given by a statute (law enacted by Parliament or the State Legislature) to perform a particular act.

When a person or public authority performs an act that is expressly authorised by law, they are generally not liable in tort, even if the act causes damage to another person. However, if the act is performed negligently, the defence may not be available unless the statute provides absolute protection.

In simple words: If the law authorises an act, a person doing that act according to the law is generally protected from tort liability.

Many public works such as:

• Construction of roads,
• Railways,
• Airports,
• Dams,
• Electricity transmission lines,

may cause inconvenience or damage to private individuals. Since these works are carried out for public welfare, the law grants immunity to those acting under statutory authority.

The principle behind this defence is: The greater public interest prevails over private interest.

This means an individual's private rights may sometimes have to give way for the benefit of society.

VIII. Inevitable accident

An Inevitable Accident is an accident that could not have been prevented even by taking reasonable care, caution, and skill.

It is an event that occurs without negligence, intention, or wrongful conduct on the part of the defendant. Since the accident was unavoidable, the defendant is not liable in tort.

In simple words: If an accident happens despite taking all reasonable precautions, it is called an inevitable accident.

An Inevitable Accident is an accident that cannot be avoided despite exercising ordinary care, caution, and skill. It is a valid defence in tort law because the defendant has committed no wrongful act or negligence.

The law of torts imposes liability only when there is a wrongful act or negligence. If a person has acted carefully and an accident still occurs, it would be unfair to hold that person liable. Therefore, the law recognizes inevitable accident as a defence.

IX. Exercise of Common Rights

Exercise of Common Rights means that every person has certain legal rights over his own person and property. If a person exercises these rights lawfully and reasonably, he is not liable in tort, even though another person may suffer some inconvenience or loss.

In simple words: A person is not liable for exercising his own legal rights, provided he acts within the limits of the law

Exercise of Common Rights is a general defence in tort law under which a person is not liable for damage caused to another while lawfully exercising his own legal rights.

Why is it a Defence?
The law gives every person certain right, such as:

• The right to use and enjoy their property.
• The right to carry on a lawful business.
• The right to protect their own interests.

If these rights are exercised lawfully and without negligence, no action in tort can generally be brought merely because someone else suffers inconvenience.

The principle is: "A lawful exercise of one's own rights is not a tort.

X. Consent on leave or Licence. (Volenti non fit injuria)

Action or tort committed with Consent, then Suffering is willing no injury is done the principle of consent or leave and licence is embodied In Maxim Volenti non fit injuria based on the principle of common sense.

Illustration: if A invite B to his house, Then B can’t be sued for trespass by A

But guest who is not entertained in drawing room. Enter in bedroom without permission. Then he can be sued for trespass because his entry into bedroom is unauthorised.

Consent can be expressed or implied.

Essential condition Volenti non fit injuria:

• 1. Consent must be given freely. Consider necessary for application of the maxim but free consent Means concerned not obtain due to undue influence, coercion, fraud, misrepresentation and mistake in absence of full knowledge of facts.
• 2. Consent cannot be given to illegal act. No consent can legalise the illegal act or an act which is prohibited by law. When tort has this character. It is amount to crime.
• 3. Knowledge of risk is not the same thing as consent to Run the risk knowledge of danger does not necessarily imply to consent to bear danger. Consent is different from just knowing the Danger The doctrine of was explained in the case of Smith v. Baker.

XI. Necessity

“Necessity knows no law” When situation demand immediate action, then it is not necessary that law should be strictly followed.

So necessary justifies an act which would otherwise be wrongful.

An act causing damages done to prevent greater evil, not actionable, but if necessity, is brought by negligence of defendant then not a defence.

Example, demolishing a building which has become dangerous and may fall

XII. Private defence

Private defence is another of immunity, well known to law.

No action can be taken for damages done in exercise of one’s right to private defence of person or property with no intention to harm.

But the action done must not be out of proportion to apparent urgency of the occasion. Thus, it does not justify to use a deadly weapon to oppose a simple push.

Honest and reasonable belief of immediate danger is the test.

IPC/BNS extends the benefit the defence Even in cases of causing death in certain circumstances.

XIII. Plaintiff as Wrongdoer

A plaintiff is not disabled from recovering by reason of being himself, a wrongdoer, unless some unlawful act or conduct on his own part is connected with the harm support by him

If a person does unlawful act, then he himself is responsible for injury happening to him

XIV. Act causing slight harm

Act Causing Slight Harm is a general defence in the law of torts. It is based on the legal maxim: De minimis non curat lex

Meaning: "The law does not concern itself with trifles (very small or insignificant matters)."

This means that if the harm caused is very minor or trivial, the court will not entertain a legal action because the injury is too insignificant to justify a lawsuit.

In simple words:

• The law does not provide a remedy for every small inconvenience or insignificant injury.

Definition - Facing Slight Harm is a defence in tort law under which the defendant is not liable if the injury caused to the plaintiff is so small or trivial that the law considers it unworthy of legal action.

Essential Elements For this defence to apply:

• The harm must be very slight or trivial.
• There must be no substantial injury or damage.
• The plaintiff's legal rights must not have been seriously affected.
• The court must consider that filing a lawsuit is unnecessary because of the insignificant nature of the harm.

Courts have limited time and resources. They are meant to decide serious legal disputes, not insignificant complaints.

Therefore, when the injury is too small to deserve judicial attention, the court refuses to grant relief.