This document outlines several general defences that can be used in tort cases, including volenti non fit injuria (consent), plaintiff being a wrongdoer, inevitable accident, act of God, private defence, mistake, necessity, and statutory authority. It focuses on explaining the defence of consent/volenti non fit injuria, outlining what it means, requirements for its application, limitations, and relevant case examples. It also provides a brief overview of the requirements for the act of God defence.
This document outlines several general defences that can be used in tort cases, including volenti non fit injuria (consent), plaintiff being a wrongdoer, inevitable accident, act of God, private defence, mistake, necessity, and statutory authority. It focuses on explaining the defence of consent/volenti non fit injuria, outlining what it means, requirements for its application, limitations, and relevant case examples. It also provides a brief overview of the requirements for the act of God defence.
This document outlines several general defences that can be used in tort cases, including volenti non fit injuria (consent), plaintiff being a wrongdoer, inevitable accident, act of God, private defence, mistake, necessity, and statutory authority. It focuses on explaining the defence of consent/volenti non fit injuria, outlining what it means, requirements for its application, limitations, and relevant case examples. It also provides a brief overview of the requirements for the act of God defence.
This document outlines several general defences that can be used in tort cases, including volenti non fit injuria (consent), plaintiff being a wrongdoer, inevitable accident, act of God, private defence, mistake, necessity, and statutory authority. It focuses on explaining the defence of consent/volenti non fit injuria, outlining what it means, requirements for its application, limitations, and relevant case examples. It also provides a brief overview of the requirements for the act of God defence.
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 17
General Defences
• The list of general defences available in tort
are: 1. Volenti non fit injuria. 2. Plaintiff is wrongdoer. 3. Inevitable accident. 4. Act of God. 5. Private defence. 6. Mistake. 7. Necessity. 8. Statutory Authority. Volenti non fit injuria. • Meaning- when person consents to infliction of some harm upon himself, he has no remedy for that in tort.
• Defence of consent is not available if the harm
go beyond the limit of what has been consented. . • Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club (1932) All E.R. Rep. 208. • Padmavati v. Dugganaika (1975) 1 Kam. L.J. 93. • Wooldrige v. Sumner (1963) 2 Q.B. 43. • Thomas v. Quartermaine (1887) Q.B.D. 685. Illot v. Wilkes ((1820) 3 B & Ald, 304. Sarch v. Blackburn, (1830) 4 C& P. 297. • Consent must be free not be obtained by fraud or under compulsion or under compulsion or under some mistaken impression. • The act done must be the same for which consent has been taken. Lakshmi Rajan v. Malar Hospital Ltd., III (1998) CPJ 586 (Tamil Nadu SCDRC). • Where a person is incapable of giving his consent a consent because of his insanity or minority , consent of his parent or guardian is sufficient. • Consent obtained by fraud: R. V. Williams (1923) 1 K.B. 340. • Consent obtained under compulsion. • For the application of the maxim volenti non fit injuria the two essential conditions are required: 1. The plaintiff knew that the risk is there. 2. He, knowing the same, agreed to suffer the harm. Bowater v. Rowley Regis Corporation (1944) K.B. 476. • Smith v. Baker (1891) A.C. 325. • Slater v. Clay Cross Co. Ltd. (1956) 2 All E.R 625. Limitations on the scope of the doctrine:
• The limitations to volenti non fit injuria
doctrine are: (a) Rescue Cases. (b) The unfair Contract Term Act, 1977. Rescue cases: Haynes v. Harwood (1935) 1 K.B 146. Wagner v International railway (1921) 232 N.Y 176. • Hyett v. Great Western Railway Co. (1948) 1 K.B 345 . 2. Unfair Contract Terms Act, 1977 - Section 2 of the Act provides: (a) Absolute ban on a person’s right to exclude his liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence, by making a contract or giving a notice to that effect. Act of God • Act of God is a defence.
• It has also been recognised as a valid
defence for the purpose of liability under the rule of Strict Liability evolved in Rylands v. Fletcher. • In act of God , the resulting loss arises out of the working of the natural forces like exceptional heavy rainfall, storms, tempests, tides and volcanic eruptions. Essentials of Act of God • Two important essentials are needed for this defence: • 1. There must be working of natural forces and • 2. The occurrence must be extraordinary and not one which could be anticipated and reasonably guarded against. 1. Working of natural forces:
Ramalinga Nadar v. Narayan Reddiar AIR
1971 Kerala 197. Nichols v. Marshland (1876) 2 Ex. D 1. 2. Occurrence must be extra ordinary:
Rock Transport Properties Corporation, New York Trap Rock Corporation and Mellon National Bank and Trust Company v. The Hartford Fire Insurance Company, 433 F.2d 152, 2d Cir. (1970)