General Defences under Law of Torts Sriram Arunachalam Law of Torts Fri, Jun 30, 2023, at ,09:57 PM IntroductionI would like to begin this article with an example. Let’s say A is proven to have fulfilled all the essential ingredients of a particular tort and therefore liable of performing the tort. Does there exist any tool at A’s disposal to absolve himself of the liability? Yes! There exists a set of excuses he can invoke to absolve himself of such liability. The nomenclature given to these set of excuses (specifically for tort law) is precisely ‘General Defenses.’ The history of tort law has witnessed the development of several general defenses through judicial precedents. In this article, I will explain the eight fundamental general defenses in detail.Types of General Defenses and Relevant Case LawsThe first general defense is volunti non fit injuria. This legal maxim means that if one voluntarily assumes the risk in a particular situation, he isn’t entitled to recovery of any ensuing damages. Therefore, in situations where there’s a semblance of the risk being voluntarily assumed by the plaintiff, the defendant can invoke this defense to claim that while there does lie liability, he must be absolved of it. A relevant case law is Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club in which the plaintiff was a spectator in a car racing event, and as a result of a collision, one of the cars was thrown into the audience, therefore injuring the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit, but it was held that the spectator had voluntarily assumed the risk by being a spectator to the event and therefore the defendant was absolved of liability.The second general defense is ‘the wrongdoer is the plaintiff.’ This defense is based on the maxim Ex turpi causa non oritur actio which means that no action can arise from an immoral cause. Therefore, if the plaintiff’s suit is based on an immoral cause, this defense can be invoked, and the defendant will be absolved of liability. A relevant case law is Pitts v Hunt in which the plaintiff was an 18-year-old who convinced the defendant who was a 16-year-old to drive fast while being drunk. Their bike met with an accident and the defendant died on the spot while the plaintiff suffered severe injuries. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant’s relatives. However, it was held that while the defendant was liable, the plaintiff was the wrongdoer in this case and his claim was based on an immoral cause.The third general defense is ‘inevitable accident.’ If the damages suffered by the plaintiff was as a result of an accident for which no precautions could’ve been taken, then the defendant would be absolved of the liability by invoking this defense. A relevant case law is Stanley v. Powell in which both the defendant and plaintiff had attended a pheasant shooting. The defendant had shot at the pheasant, but the bullet reflected off an oak tree and hit the plaintiff, causing severe injuries. The plaintiff had filed suit, but it was held that the event was an accident that was inevitable as no reasonable precautions could’ve been taken to prevent the event.The fourth general defense is Act of God. This means that an extraordinary event occurs as a result of a natural cause, for which no human is liable. Therefore, if a plaintiff files a suit against the defendant for an ‘Act of God’, the defendant wouldn’t be liable. A relevant case law is Nichols v. Marshland in which the defendant created an artificial lake on his land and the plaintiff owned four bridges next to it. One day, there was the heaviest rainfall ever recorded and the water from the lake washed away the bridges and the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant. However, it was held that the rainfall was an Act of God, and that the defendant was not liable.The fifth general defense is private defense. This defense means that reasonable force to protect oneself or one’s property is allowed if it is justified for self-defense purposes and made in light of any imminent threat to oneself or one’s property. Therefore, if the defendant acted in self-defense to an imminent threat, he would be absolved of liability. However, this defense is rarely accepted as the force used often breaches the parameters of being reasonable. A relevant case law is Bird v. Halbrook in which it was held that fixing spring guns to attack trespassers wasn’t reasonable and therefore private defense is inapplicable.The sixth general defense is mistake. This means that if the defendant had performed an act under the mistaken belief, he could claim this defense in some situations even if he is liable. A relevant case law is Derry v. Peek in which this defense was accepted. However, the acceptance of this defense is very rare.The seventh general defense is necessity. This means that if an act was done to prevent any larger harm, the act wouldn’t be actionable and would serve to be a defense. Therefore, if a plaintiff files a suit against the defendant for an act that was performed in order to prevent a worse consequence, the defendant would be absolved of liability. A relevant case law is Leigh v. Gladstone in which it was held that forcibly feeding workers who were on a hunger-strike was protected by the defense of necessity in order to prevent the larger consequence of their health deteriorating by virtue of starvation.The eighth general defense is statutory authority. This means that even if an act constituted a tort, it wouldn’t be actionable if it was authorized by a statute. Therefore, if a plaintiff filed suit against a defendant who had performed an act authorized by a statute, the defendant would be absolved of liability. A relevant case law is Hammer Smith Rail Co. v. Brand in which the value of the plaintiff’s property had depreciated as a result of loud noise from the trains nearby that are owned by the defendant. The plaintiff filed suit, but it was dismissed as the trains were authorized by a statutory authority.Conclusion General defenses are a set of excuses that can be invoked to absolve liability in the field of tort law. In this article, I’ve explained all the fundamental general defenses in detail. They are namely volunti non fit injuria, the wrongdoer is the plaintiff, inevitable accident, Act of God, private defense, mistake, necessity and statutory authority. To conclude, I would like to say that while these are the existing general defenses, common law systems are designed in such a way that several more defenses will be uncovered in the future.ReferencesGoudkamp, James, and Donald Nolan. Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort. Sweet & Maxwell, 2020. Krishnendra Joshi, et al. “Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio.” iPleaders, 9 Oct. 2019, blog.ipleaders.in/ex-turpi-causa-non-oritur-actio/. Harpwood, Vivienne. Principles of Tort Law - Fourth Edition.