MODULE 1: TORT BALLB SEM 5

Tort: Definition, Nature, Scope, and Object

1. Definition of Tort
A tort is a civil wrong that causes harm or loss to an individual, for which the injured party may
seek compensation through the legal system. The term "tort" comes from the Latin word
"tortus," meaning "wrong" or "twisted." In legal terms, it refers to an act or omission that results
in harm or injury to someone, and the injured person has a right to seek a remedy, usually in
the form of damages (money).
"A tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action and which does not arise
out of a breach of a contract or a trust or a similar relationship." - SALMOND

In common law systems, torts are distinct from crimes (which are public wrongs prosecuted by
the state) and from contract law (which deals with the breach of agreements between parties).
Torts are primarily concerned with civil wrongs that involve a breach of duty owed to others,
leading to harm or damage.

2. Nature of Tort
The nature of tort law includes several important features:

Civil in Nature: Torts are primarily civil wrongs, meaning they are dealt with in civil courts.
The purpose is to provide compensation to the injured party, not to punish the wrongdoer.

Unintentional or Intentional: Torts can either be intentional (such as battery, defamation, or

fraud) or unintentional (such as negligence or strict liability).

Redressal through Damages: In tort law, the remedy is generally in the form of damages
(financial compensation) to the injured party. In some cases, an injunction (an order to stop
doing a particular act) may be granted.

Breach of Duty: Torts arise when an individual or entity breaches a duty that they owe to
another person. This duty may be imposed by law (like the duty to drive carefully) or arise
from a relationship between the parties (like the duty of a doctor to their patient).

Liability: In torts, liability is often based on fault, although strict liability may apply in certain
cases, where liability exists regardless of fault (e.g., in cases involving hazardous activities).

1
3. Scope of Tort
The scope of tort law encompasses a wide range of civil wrongs, some of the most common
categories include:

Negligence: Failing to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm to others (e.g., car accidents
caused by careless driving).

Battery and Assault: Battery is the unlawful physical contact with another person, while assault
refers to the threat of harm.

Defamation: Making false statements about someone that harm their reputation (e.g., slander
or libel).

Nuisance: Causing unreasonable interference with a person’s enjoyment of their property (e.g.,
loud noises or pollution).

Strict Liability: Holding a party liable for damages even if they were not at fault (e.g., damage
caused by keeping dangerous animals or using explosives).

Trespass: Entering or interfering with another person’s land or property without permission.

Conversion: Unlawfully taking or using another person's property.

4. Object of Tort Law

The primary objectives of tort law include:

Compensation: The most fundamental objective is to provide compensation to the injured party
for the harm or loss suffered. The law seeks to restore the injured party to the position they
were in before the tort occurred, as much as possible.

Justice and Fairness: Tort law ensures that wrongdoers are held accountable for their actions.
This aims to provide justice by preventing people from engaging in conduct that harms others
without consequence.

2
Deterrence: By imposing liability and awarding damages, tort law aims to deter individuals
and organizations from engaging in harmful behavior that could lead to legal action.

Prevention: Another objective of tort law is to encourage people and entities to act responsibly
and take reasonable care to avoid causing harm to others, thereby promoting safety and social
welfare.

5. Tort in India
In India, tort law is largely influenced by the principles of English common law. While there is
no separate codified statute governing torts in India, the law of torts is based on judicial
precedents and various statutes. The Indian legal system offers re medies for tortious acts
through civil courts, under the framework of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Civil Procedure
Code (CPC), and other relevant laws.

Key features of tort law in India:

Judicial Precedents: Indian courts follow the principles of tort law developed by English courts,
although they have also adapted and modified them in light of Indian social, economic, and
cultural contexts.

Statutory Influence: Certain torts are also covered by specific statutes, such as the Consumer
Protection Act, The Motor Vehicles Act, and The Environment Protection Act.

Judicial Development: Over time, the Indian judiciary has significantly contributed to the
evolution of tort law, especially in areas like environmental protection, human rights, and
consumer protection.

Notable cases in Indian tort law include:

K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1954): The Supreme Court held the government liable for
negligent acts, emphasizing that the state can be held liable under tort law.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987): The Supreme Court developed the principle of strict
liability in the context of environmental pollution and industrial accidents, even without fault.

3
R.K. Malik v. K.K. Verma (1988): The case highlighted the issue of defamation and the scope
of liability under tort law for reputation-related claims.

Conclusion
Tort law plays an essential role in protecting individuals and ensuring justice in society. It
provides remedies for civil wrongs that lead to personal injury, property damage, or harm to
reputation. In India, although tort law is not codified, it is deeply integrated into the legal
system through common law principles and judicial precedents. It serves as a means to redress
grievances and deter wrongful actions, ensuring fairness and accountability in both personal
and business interactions.

4
5
6
 Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria Sine Damnum
In tort law, two important Latin maxims explain different situations involving harm or injury
to an individual. These are Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria Sine Damnum. Understanding
these concepts helps in distinguishing between cases where damage is action able and those
where it isn't. Let's dive into both concepts in detail.

1. Damnum Sine Injuria (Damage Without Legal Injury)

Meaning:
Damnum Sine Injuria literally translates to "damage without injury." It refers to situations
where an individual suffers damage (such as economic loss, physical harm, or any other type
of harm), but no legal right is violated, and thus there is no legal in jury. In such cases, there is
no actionable claim in tort, because the law only protects against the violation of legal rights,
not just the occurrence of damage.

Key Point:
For a tort to be actionable, there must be both damage and legal injury (the violation of a
recognized legal right). If there is damage but no violation of a legal right, there is no tort, and
hence, no remedy or compensation can be sought by the aggrieved party.

Explanation:
In Damnum Sine Injuria, the harm caused does not amount to an infringement of any legal
right. This means that while the person may have suffered damage in terms of financial loss,
emotional distress, or property loss, the loss did not result from the violation of their legal
rights. Therefore, the law does not provide a remedy.

Example:
Imagine a neighbor builds a factory on their land, which causes a decrease in the value of your
adjacent property. Though you suffer a financial loss due to the reduced value of your land,
your legal right to own and use the property has not been violated. The neighbor is within their
legal rights to build on their land, and thus, no legal action can be taken for the loss in property
value.

Landmark Case:

Gloucester Grammar School Case (1410):

7
In this case, a teacher took away students from the plaintiff’s school to establish a rival school.
The court ruled that although the plaintiff suffered financial damage, no legal right was violated
by the teacher's actions, as there was no interference with the plaintiff's legal rights. The harm
was just damage to the business, not a tortious act. Hence, no action was possible.
Mogul Steamship Company Ltd. v. McGregor, Gow & Co. (1892)
Facts: The defendant's price-cutting harmed the plaintiff’s business.
Ruling: The court ruled that lawful competition is not a tort unless it involves illegal actions.
Principle: Damnum Sine Injuria — damage caused by fair competition is not actionable.

2. Injuria Sine Damnum (Injury Without Damage)

Meaning:
Injuria Sine Damnum translates to "injury without damage." It refers to situations where an
individual’s legal right is violated, but the person does not suffer any actual damage (such as
physical harm, financial loss, or property damage). In these cases, the violation of the legal
right itself is sufficient to allow the individual to seek a legal remedy, even though no actual
loss has occurred.

Key Point:
In Injuria Sine Damnum, the legal right of the plaintiff is violated, and the law provides a
remedy for the violation of that right, even if no tangible damage or harm has been suffered.
The law protects legal rights, and the mere infringement of a right, even without harm, is
actionable.

Explanation:
In such cases, the plaintiff’s legal right is infringed, whether or not they experience physical
injury, financial loss, or any other tangible damage. This can include violations like trespass,
defamation, or assault, where the act violates the legal rights of an individual, even if the
individual is not physically harmed. Therefore, the law allows the person to sue for damages,
as the violation of the right itself is seen as an injury.

Example:
If someone trespasses on your property without causing any physical damage to it (e.g., just
walking on your land or using it without permission), you can still sue for trespass, because
your right to control your property was violated. Even though no damage was done to the land,
the legal right to exclusive use and control was infringed upon.

8
Landmark Case:
Ashby v. White (1703):
In this case, the plaintiff (Ashby) was unlawfully prevented from voting in a parliamentary
election by the returning officer (White). Although Ashby did not suffer any physical damage,
his legal right to vote was violated. The court ruled that the denial of a legal right was an injury
in itself and allowed Ashby to claim damages. This case is a classic example of Injuria Sine
Damnum, where the violation of a legal right (right to vote) is sufficient to bring a lawsuit,
even without actual harm.
Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1986) AIR 494 SC
Facts: A legislator was illegally detained by the police, preventing him from attending a
legislative session.
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that illegal detention violated fundamental rights under Article
21 and awarded compensation.
Principle: Injuria Sine Damnum — violation of personal liberty (a legal right) led to a claim
for compensation, even without physical harm.

Conclusion
Damnum Sine Injuria refers to damage that occurs without the violation of any legal right. In
such cases, no tort action is possible, as there is no injury to the plaintiff’s rights.
Injuria Sine Damnum refers to the violation of a legal right even in the absence of tangible
damage. In such cases, tortious action is permissible, and the person can seek legal remedy for
the violation of their right, irrespective of whether they suffered damage.
Both principles highlight the importance of legal rights in determining the viability of a tort
claim, with Damnum Sine Injuria focusing on the absence of legal injury and Injuria Sine
Damnum emphasizing the infringement of a legal right.

9
 Volenti Non Fit Injuria (To a Willing Person, No Injury is Done)
Meaning:
The Latin phrase "Volenti Non Fit Injuria" means "to a willing person, no injury is done." This
maxim states that a person who consents to an action cannot later claim that they were injured
or wronged as a result of that action.

Key Point:
This principle is primarily used as a defense in tort law, particularly in cases involving consent.
If a person voluntarily consents to an act that might otherwise be considered harmful or
injurious, they cannot sue for damages resulting from that act. Essentially, consent negates the
idea of injury or harm in the legal sense.

Explanation:
The maxim emphasizes that consent removes the wrongful or tortious nature of an act. When
a person knowingly and voluntarily allows an action to take place, they waive their right to
claim that they were injured or harmed by the action. This can apply to various situations, such
as sports (where participants consent to the risks), medical procedures (where patients consent
to treatment), or other risky activities.

Example:
Consider a person who voluntarily participates in a contact sport like rugby. Even though
injuries are common in such sports, the player consents to the potential risks involved. If the
player is injured during the game, they cannot sue the other players for damages because their
participation in the game constitutes their consent to the risk of injury.
Similarly, in a medical context, if a patient consents to surgery, they cannot later sue the surgeon
for injuries sustained during the procedure, unless there was negligence or failure to follow
proper medical protocols.

Landmark Case:

Ivy v. GLC (1985):

In this case, a person voluntarily accepted a ride from a bus conductor. During the journey, the
bus was involved in an accident, and the person was injured. However, the court held that the
plaintiff had voluntarily assumed the risk by boarding the bus. Thus, the defense of volenti non
fit injuria was applied, and the person was not entitled to claim damages.

10
Exceptions:
Even though consent can negate injury, this maxim doesn't apply in all cases. For example,
informed consent is required in medical procedures, and negligence can still result in liability.
Also, a person who consents to an activity may still have a right to claim if the act exceeds the
scope of the consent (e.g., an extreme injury caused outside of reasonable expectations).

Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium (Where There is a Right, There is a Remedy)

Meaning:
The Latin maxim "Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium" translates to "where there is a right, there is a
remedy." This principle reflects the fundamental idea that whenever the law grants an
individual a legal right, it must also provide an appropriate remedy (legal solution) to protect
and enforce that right.

Key Point:
This maxim underlines the right to remedy. If a person’s legal right is violated, the law will
provide a remedy for the infringement of that right, ensuring justice. This ensures that
individuals can seek redress or compensation when their rights are harme d.

Explanation:
Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium is rooted in the principle of justice and the rule of law. It highlights that
the legal system is designed not only to define rights but also to provide mechanisms (such as
damages, injunctions, or specific performance) for the enforcement of those rights. If a person
is entitled to something under the law, they must have a means to obtain it or to seek
compensation for its violation.

Example:
If a person’s property right is infringed by a neighbor who trespasses on their land, the person
whose property rights were violated has a remedy under the law. They can claim damages for
any loss caused by the trespass or ask for an injunction to stop the trespasser from further
violating their property rights.

Similarly, if an individual’s contractual rights are breached (e.g., if one party fails to fulfill a
contract), the aggrieved party has a remedy in the form of damages or specific performance to
enforce the terms of the contract.

Landmark Case:

11
Ashby v. White (1703):
In this case, the plaintiff (Ashby) was wrongfully prevented from voting in a parliamentary
election by the defendant (White). Despite suffering no physical harm or damage, Ashby’s right
to vote was violated, and the court held that under the maxim Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium, Ashby
was entitled to a remedy (damages for the infringement of his legal right). The case affirmed
that a legal right must be protected by a remedy.

Conclusion
Volenti Non Fit Injuria emphasizes that consent to an act removes the possibility of claiming
injury from it. If someone voluntarily accepts a risky situation, they cannot later claim to be
injured by it, as they have waived their right to claim.

Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium ensures that the legal system provides remedies for every legal right
that is infringed. If someone’s legal right is violated, they are entitled to seek a remedy, whether
it is compensation, injunctions, or other forms of legal redress.

Both principles play a crucial role in balancing rights and remedies within the legal framework,
ensuring that consent and justice are taken into account when determining liability and legal
solutions.

12
 Extinguishment of Liability in Tort
In tort law, extinguishment of liability refers to circumstances under which an individual or
entity may no longer be held responsible for their wrongful act, despite the fact that the act
might have otherwise resulted in a tort claim. There are several key situations and defenses
under which liability in tort may be extinguished. These defenses typically prevent a plaintiff
from succeeding in a claim or lead to a termination of legal responsibility.

1. Volenti Non Fit Injuria (Consent)

Explanation: This Latin maxim means "to a willing person, no injury is done." If a person
voluntarily consents to an act that may otherwise be harmful (e.g., participating in a dangerous
sport or agreeing to medical treatment), they cannot later claim injury resulting from that act.
Application: When a person willingly accepts the risk associated with a particular action, they
waive their right to claim damages if harm occurs.
Example: A player in a rugby match consents to the physical risks involved. If they are injured
during the match, they cannot sue the opponent for assault or battery, as they had consented to
the potential risks of injury.
2. Inevitable Accident
Explanation: An inevitable accident is an event that occurs without any fault or negligence of
the defendant. In such cases, liability does not arise because the defendant could not have
prevented the event, even with the utmost care.
Application: The defendant may be excused from liability if they can prove that the act was
unavoidable and occurred despite reasonable care and caution.
Example: If a car suddenly swerves to avoid hitting an animal, but in doing so, crashes into a
tree, this could be considered an inevitable accident if it can be shown that the driver had no
time to react and was not negligent.
3. Act of God (Force Majeure)
Explanation: An Act of God refers to a natural event that is unforeseeable and unpreventable
by human intervention (e.g., floods, earthquakes, hurricanes). Such events may extinguish
liability if they cause damage or injury that could not have been avoided even by taking
reasonable precautions.
Application: If an event is caused by natural forces beyond human control, the defendant may
not be held liable for the harm caused.
Example: If a factory is destroyed by a sudden, unforeseen earthquake, the owners may not be
liable for damages caused, as the earthquake was an Act of God.
4. Statutory Authority
Explanation: Under certain circumstances, if the defendant’s actions are authorized by law or
statute, they may not be held liable for what would otherwise be a tort. This defense applies

13
where a law permits the defendant to engage in activities that would otherwise be considered
unlawful.
Application: This includes cases where actions are performed by public authorities (e.g., police,
government agencies) in the exercise of their lawful powers.
Example: If the police lawfully break into a property in pursuit of a criminal under the authority
of a search warrant, they will not be liable for trespass or damage to property.
5. Self-Defense and Defense of Property
Explanation: A person is allowed to use reasonable force to defend themselves or their property
from harm. If the force used is proportionate and reasonable under the circumstances, liability
in tort is typically extinguished.
Application: A person who acts in self-defense or to protect their property will not be liable for
any harm caused to the aggressor or their property, provided the force used is not excessive.
Example: If someone is attacked and they defend themselves by pushing the attacker away,
causing injury, they may not be liable for the injury as long as the force used was reasonable in
the circumstances.
6. Agreement (Contractual Exclusion)
Explanation: In certain cases, parties may enter into a contract that limits or excludes liability
for tortious acts. However, these clauses cannot exclude liability for negligence where the law
requires it (e.g., in cases of personal injury).
Application: Many contracts, particularly in commercial transactions (e.g., service contracts,
waiver forms), contain clauses where the parties agree to limit or exclude liability for certain
types of harm.
Example: A skydiving company may require participants to sign a waiver that limits its liability
in the event of an accident, thereby extinguishing liability for certain torts, such as negligence.
7. Limitation Period (Statute of Limitations)
Explanation: In tort law, there is a time limit within which a plaintiff can bring a legal action
for a tort. Once this period has expired, the defendant is no longer liable for the claim, even if
the harm occurred.
Application: The Statute of Limitations sets a maximum period after the date of the tort during
which the injured party can bring a claim. Once this period lapses, the defendant's liability is
extinguished, and the plaintiff loses the right to sue.
Example: If a person suffers from personal injury due to an accident but waits more than the
legally prescribed time (often 3 years) to file a claim, they may be barred from bringing the
case, regardless of the facts.
8. Release and Settlement
Explanation: If the injured party settles the matter or releases the defendant from liability, the
claim may be extinguished. A settlement agreement or release is a legal document in which the
plaintiff agrees to forgo any further claims for compensation.

14
Application: This commonly occurs in personal injury cases where the plaintiff agrees to accept
a lump sum payment in exchange for waiving the right to pursue further legal action.
Example: If an employee is injured at work and agrees to a settlement for compensation, they
may not be able to file a tort action against their employer afterward, as the matter has been
settled.
9. Contributory Negligence
Explanation: In some jurisdictions, if the plaintiff is partly at fault for the harm they suffered,
their claim may be reduced or barred. This defense applies if the plaintiff’s own negligence
contributed to the damage or injury.
Application: Contributory negligence reduces or extinguishes liability depending on the extent
of the plaintiff’s fault.
Example: If a pedestrian jaywalks and is hit by a car, their contributory negligence may reduce
or even extinguish the driver’s liability if the pedestrian’s actions were deemed significantly
responsible for the accident.
10. Lack of Causation (Novus Actus Interveniens)
Explanation: Causation is a key element in tort law. If the defendant’s act did not cause the
harm in question (i.e., if an independent intervening act or event occurred), the defendant may
not be held liable. This is known as a Novus Actus Interveniens (n ew act intervening).
Application: The defendant’s actions must be the proximate cause of the harm. If another event
breaks the causal chain, it can extinguish liability.
Example: If someone negligently starts a fire that causes harm, but the harm is later caused by
an unrelated event (e.g., a third party deliberately sets off another fire), the defendant may not
be liable for the harm caused by the second fire.
Conclusion
The extinguishment of liability in tort can occur under various defenses or situations, which
include consent, accidents, statutory authority, self-defense, contractual exclusion, time limits
(Statute of Limitations), settlements, contributory negligence, and causation issues.
Understanding these defenses is crucial in determining whether or not a defendant will be held
liable for a tortious act.

15
 General Defenses in Tort Law
In tort law, there are several general defenses available to defendants to excuse or justify their
actions, thereby potentially preventing liability or reducing the consequences of a wrongful act.
These defenses, if proven, can either extinguish the tort claim entirely or reduce the extent of
the defendant’s liability. The most common general defenses in tort law include:

1. Consent (Volenti Non Fit Injuria)

Meaning: This Latin maxim translates to "to a willing person, no injury is done." If a person
voluntarily consents to an act that causes them harm, they cannot later claim compensation for
the injury or harm caused.
Application: This defense applies in situations where the plaintiff knowingly and willingly
accepts the risk of injury, such as in sports or other activities involving inherent risks.
Example: If a person plays football, they are presumed to consent to the physical risks of the
game. Therefore, if they are injured during the game, they cannot sue for damages resulting
from the injury.
2. Inevitable Accident
Meaning: An inevitable accident refers to an incident that occurs despite the exercise of
reasonable care and cannot be foreseen or prevented. It is an event that could not have been
avoided, even by the most careful person.
Application: The defendant is not liable for an injury caused by an inevitable accident if they
acted reasonably under the circumstances.
Example: A person driving a car might swerve to avoid an animal crossing the road and crashes
into a tree. If the crash was caused by an unavoidable circumstance, it could be considered an
inevitable accident.
3. Act of God (Force Majeure)
Meaning: This defense refers to an event that is caused by natural forces beyond human control,
such as earthquakes, floods, or lightning strikes. It is something that could not have been
foreseen or avoided by human intervention.
Application: If a defendant's actions were impacted by an Act of God, they might be excused
from liability, as they could not have anticipated or prevented the event.
Example: If a factory’s roof collapses due to an unexpected earthquake, the owner might not
be liable for damages because the earthquake is considered an Act of God.
4. Statutory Authority
Meaning: If an act that would normally be considered a tort is authorized by law (through a
statute), the defendant may be excused from liability. This means that actions taken under the
authority of a legal provision will not be considered unlawful.

16
Application: This defense applies in cases where a government body or authorized entity acts
in accordance with their legal powers, even if their actions cause harm or damage.
Example: A police officer breaking into a house without a warrant to apprehend a criminal may
not be liable for trespass if the law authorizes such action under emergency conditions.
5. Self-Defense
Meaning: A person may use reasonable force to protect themselves from harm. If the force used
is proportionate to the threat faced, the defendant may be excused from liability, even if their
actions result in harm to another person.
Application: The use of force must be reasonable and in response to an immediate threat. If the
force used is excessive, the defendant may still be liable for torts like assault or battery.
Example: If someone is physically attacked, they may use reasonable force to defend
themselves. If the attacker is injured in the process, the defender is not liable for the injury if
the force was proportionate to the threat.
6. Defense of Property
Meaning: Just as a person can defend themselves, they are also entitled to defend their property
from unlawful interference or damage, using reasonable force.
Application: The force used in defending property must be proportionate and not excessive in
relation to the threat posed. If excessive force is used, the defendant may still be held liable.
Example: If someone attempts to steal a car and the car owner uses reasonable force to stop
them, the car owner may not be liable for any injury caused to the thief, as long as the force
was not excessive.
7. Necessity
Meaning: The necessity defense justifies an act that would otherwise be unlawful if it was done
in order to prevent a greater harm. This defense is often used in emergencies where a person
must break the law to prevent a greater injury or damage.
Application: The act must be necessary to prevent a greater harm, and the harm caused by the
defendant’s actions must be proportionate to the harm avoided.
Example: A person may break into a house to rescue someone trapped inside during a fire. In
this case, the act of breaking and entering is justified by the necessity to save a life.
8. Mistake
Meaning: A mistake, particularly a mistake of fact, can be used as a defense in tort law. If a
person makes an honest and reasonable mistake, and they act based on that mistake, they may
not be liable for the tort.
Application: This defense is available when the defendant acted in good faith and with
reasonable belief that their actions were lawful. However, the defense does not apply in cases
of mistake about the law (i.e., ignorance of the law is no excuse).

17
Example: If a person mistakenly takes someone else's bag, thinking it is their own, they might
use mistake as a defense in a theft claim.
9. Contribution and Contributory Negligence
Meaning: Contributory negligence is a defense where the defendant argues that the plaintiff’s
own negligence contributed to the harm they suffered. If the plaintiff's actions were partly
responsible for the injury, the defendant may not be fully liable or may have their liability
reduced.
Application: In jurisdictions where contributory negligence is a complete defense, any fault by
the plaintiff will prevent them from claiming damages. In other jurisdictions that apply
comparative negligence, the plaintiff’s recovery is reduced in proportion to their own degree
of fault.
Example: If a pedestrian jaywalks and is hit by a car, their contributory negligence (jaywalking)
might reduce or extinguish the driver's liability.
10. Release or Waiver
Meaning: A release or waiver is a legal agreement in which the injured party agrees to forgo
their right to sue in exchange for compensation or other benefits. By signing such a waiver, the
plaintiff agrees not to hold the defendant liable for any future claims.
Application: This is commonly seen in activities with inherent risks, like extreme sports, where
participants sign waivers releasing the organizers from liability for injuries sustained.
Example: A person signing a waiver before participating in a skydiving activity may not be
able to sue the company for any injuries resulting from the activity, as they have waived their
right to sue.
11. Legal Authority
Meaning: This defense is available when the defendant's actions are carried out under legal
authority, such as performing their duty as a public officer or exercising statutory powers.
Application: If the defendant is acting within the scope of their legal authority (e.g., police,
military personnel, or public officials), they are often exempt from liability for actions that
would otherwise constitute torts.
Example: A police officer arresting a person using force is not liable for assault, as the officer
is exercising their statutory powers under the law.
Conclusion
These general defenses serve as protections for individuals who have committed acts that could
otherwise result in liability for torts. Depending on the specific circumstances of the case, these
defenses can either completely extinguish liability or reduce the defendant’s responsibility for
the harm caused. The application of these defenses requires a detailed understanding of the
facts and circumstances surrounding each case.

18
 Discharge of Torts
In tort law, discharge of liability refers to the situation where the defendant is no longer held
liable for a tortious act. Various circumstances or events can lead to the discharge of liability,
meaning that the defendant is absolved from responsibility for the harm or injury caused. These
circumstances can either extinguish the claim altogether or reduce the extent of liability. Here
are the key ways in which liability in tort can be discharged:

1. Volenti Non Fit Injuria (Consent)

Explanation: As a defense, consent (or volenti non fit injuria) can discharge the liability in tort.
If the plaintiff voluntarily agrees to a risk or harmful conduct, they cannot claim compensation
for injuries resulting from that conduct.
Application: This defense is commonly used in sports, dangerous activities, and medical
treatment. If a person consents to an activity that involves some inherent risk (e.g., playing a
sport), they cannot sue for injuries caused during the activity.
Example: A football player consents to the risks of injury while playing the game, so if they
are injured during the game, they cannot claim compensation for the injury.
2. Inevitable Accident
Explanation: An inevitable accident refers to a situation where harm occurs without fault on
the part of the defendant, and despite exercising reasonable care. The defendant is not liable
for an injury caused by an accident that could not have been foresee n or prevented.
Application: This defense applies when an event is caused by an unavoidable and unexpected
circumstance, such as a natural disaster or a sudden, unforeseen incident.
Example: If a person is driving and a tree falls on the road, causing them to crash, it could be
considered an inevitable accident because the event could not have been prevented, and the
driver was not at fault.
3. Act of God (Force Majeure)
Explanation: An Act of God or force majeure refers to natural events that are beyond human
control, such as earthquakes, floods, or lightning. If an injury or harm is caused by an Act of
God, the defendant is typically not liable.
Application: This defense applies when the harm was caused by uncontrollable natural forces
that could not have been predicted or prevented.
Example: A factory's roof might collapse during a sudden earthquake. In such a case, the factory
owner may not be liable for damages caused by the collapse, as the earthquake was an Act of
God.
4. Statutory Authority
Explanation: If an act is authorized by law (statutory authority), the defendant may not be held
liable for an act that would normally be considered a tort. This defense allows certain actions
to be taken by the defendant that are permitted by statute or regulation.

19
Application: This defense applies when public authorities or private individuals are acting
within the scope of their legal powers under a statute, and their actions cause harm to others.
Example: A police officer breaking into a house under a legal warrant is not liable for trespass
or property damage, as their actions are authorized by law.
5. Self-Defense
Explanation: A person is allowed to use reasonable force to protect themselves from harm or
to protect their property. If the force used is proportionate to the threat faced, the defendant
may be discharged from liability.
Application: The defense of self-defense can be used when the defendant is protecting
themselves from imminent harm or danger. However, if excessive force is used, the defendant
may still be liable for the injury.
Example: If someone is attacked and they defend themselves by pushing the attacker away,
causing the attacker to fall and get injured, the defendant may be discharged from liability if
the force used was reasonable.
6. Necessity
Explanation: The defense of necessity justifies certain acts that would otherwise be considered
tortious if they were committed to prevent a greater harm or to protect public or private
interests. In such cases, the defendant's actions are justified because the harm avoided was
greater than the harm caused.
Application: This defense is commonly invoked in emergency situations, where the defendant’s
actions are necessary to avoid more serious consequences.
Example: A person breaks into a house to rescue someone trapped in a fire. The harm of
breaking into the house is justified by the greater harm of leaving the person inside the fire.
7. Release and Waiver
Explanation: If the injured party agrees to a settlement or releases the defendant from liability,
this can discharge the defendant from further liability. A release or waiver is a legal agreement
that prevents the injured party from bringing future claims against the defendant.
Application: A release or waiver is often used in cases where the parties settle out of court, or
where one party agrees not to sue in exchange for compensation or other considerations.
Example: A person who signs a waiver form before participating in an extreme sport (e.g.,
skydiving or bungee jumping) may not be able to sue for injuries sustained during the activity,
as they have released the company from liability.
8. Limitation Period (Statute of Limitations)
Explanation: In tort law, there is a time limit within which the injured party must file a claim
for damages. Once this limitation period has passed, the claim is extinguished, and the
defendant can no longer be held liable.

20
Application: The time limit varies depending on the type of tort and the jurisdiction, but after
the statutory period has passed, the defendant may not be held liable even if the plaintiff still
has a valid claim.
Example: In most jurisdictions, personal injury claims must be brought within a certain number
of years (e.g., 3 years) from the date of the injury. If the plaintiff does not file within that period,
the defendant is no longer liable.
9. Contributory Negligence (or Comparative Fault)
Explanation: If the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to the harm they suffered, their
ability to recover damages may be reduced or eliminated. In jurisdictions that follow the
contributory negligence rule, the plaintiff’s own fault may bar their reco very entirely. In
jurisdictions with comparative negligence, the plaintiff’s damages may be reduced in
proportion to their degree of fault.
Application: This defense applies when the plaintiff's actions contribute to their injury, and
their level of fault determines the extent to which they can recover damages.
Example: If a pedestrian jaywalks and is hit by a car, their contributory negligence (in crossing
the road illegally) may reduce the driver’s liability or bar the pedestrian from claiming damages
in some jurisdictions.
10. Causation (Novus Actus Interveniens)
Explanation: If an intervening event (known as a novus actus interveniens) breaks the causal
link between the defendant’s actions and the harm caused, the defendant may be discharged
from liability. The intervening event must be independent of the defendan t’s actions and must
have been unforeseen.
Application: This defense applies if a third-party action, or an event outside the defendant's
control, directly causes the harm after the defendant’s original act.
Example: If a person negligently starts a fire, but the harm is later caused by another person
setting off a new fire, the original defendant may be discharged from liability because the
second fire was an intervening cause.
11. Death of the Defendant
Explanation: Death of the defendant may discharge liability in torts, as tort actions generally
do not survive against a deceased person. However, in some cases, claims may be brought
against the estate of the deceased.
Application: If a defendant dies, the tort claim may either be discharged or transferred to the
estate or surviving parties. In some cases, the claim can continue against the defendant’s estate.
Example: If a person is injured in a car accident caused by a defendant who later dies, the
injured party may still be able to claim damages against the estate of the deceased.
Conclusion
The discharge of liability in tort occurs when certain defenses, actions, or events prevent or
reduce the defendant's responsibility for the harm caused. These defenses include consent,

21
inevitable accidents, Acts of God, statutory authority, self-defense, necessity, limitation
periods, contributory negligence, causation issues, and others. Understanding these defenses is
crucial for both plaintiffs and defendants in tort cases, as they determine whether liability will
be imposed or discharged.

DO LIKE, SHARE AND SUBSCRIBE : LAW_WITH_JANVI

22