Example: A driver who disregards a red traffic signal and causes a collision is liable for negligence if another party is injured.

Assault: It is an intentional act that creates a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact.

Elements :

- Intentional Act: The defendant must have intended to create apprehension of harm.

- Apprehension of Imminent Harm: The plaintiff must experience a reasonable fear of imminent harmful or offensive contact.

- Lack of Consent: The act must occur without the plaintiff’s consent.

Example: Threatening to strike someone with a clenched fist in a manner that causes fear of immediate harm constitutes assault.

Battery:Battery involves intentional and unlawful physical contact with another person.

Elements :

- The defendant must intend to make physical contact with the plaintiff.

- The contact must be harmful (resulting in physical injury) or offensive (contact deemed unacceptable by a reasonable person).

- The plaintiff must not have consented to the contact.

Example: Striking someone during an argument without consent is considered battery.

False Imprisonment: False imprisonment occurs when an individual intentionally restricts another's freedom of movement without lawful authority.

Elements :

- The defendant must intentionally confine or restrain the plaintiff.

- The confinement must be without the plaintiff’s consent.

- The confinement must be unlawful and not justified by any legal rights.

Example: Restricting someone in a room against their will without legal justification is false imprisonment.

Defamation: Defamation involves making false statements that damage another person’s reputation.

Elements :

- The statement made must be untrue.

- The statement must be communicated to a third party.

- The statement must cause harm to the plaintiff’s reputation.

- In some jurisdictions, the plaintiff must prove the defendant acted with negligence, or in the case of public figures, actual malice.

Example: Publishing a false accusation of criminal behaviour against someone can be grounds for a defamation claim.

Nuisance : Nuisance involves unreasonable interference with a person’s enjoyment of their property.

Elements :

- The interference must significantly impact the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of their property.

- The interference must be unreasonable under the given circumstances.

- The interference must not be legally justified.

Example: Persistent, excessive noise from a neighbouring property that disrupts one’s peaceful enjoyment of their home may constitute a nuisance.

Trespass to Land: Trespass to land involves unauthorized entry onto another person’s property.

Elements :

- The defendant must enter the property without permission.

- Entry can be physical or through an object.

- The defendant need not intend to trespass but must intend to enter the property.

Example: Entering someone’s private property without authorization is classified as trespass.

Trespass to Chattels: Trespass to chattels entails intentional interference with another person’s personal property.

Elements :

- The defendant must intentionally interfere with the plaintiff’s possession of personal property.

- The interference must result in harm or dispossession.

- The interference must occur without the plaintiff’s consent.

Example: Taking and damaging another person’s laptop without permission could be deemed trespass to chattels.

Conversion: Conversion involves unauthorized control over another’s property, effectively depriving the owner of their rights.

Elements :

- The defendant must intentionally act in a manner that interferes with the plaintiff’s property rights.

- The act must significantly interfere with the plaintiff’s ownership or possession.

- The act must lack lawful justification.

Example: Selling another person’s property without authorization would constitute conversion.

Defenses under Law of Torts

1. Volenti Non Fit Injuria

The doctrine "Volenti Non Fit Injuria" in Latin implies To a willing person, no injury is done. The defense maintains that a defendant cannot be made liable for any harm caused to a plaintiff if he has consented to incur the risk himself. In legal terminology, if a plaintiff knowingly agrees to participate in an activity that includes inherent risks, the defendant is usually held not liable to injuries that occur while participating in that activity.

For example, participants in sports or adventurous activities are considered to assume the risks involved in those activities, and thus cannot sue for injuries resulting from those risks.

Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir AIR 1986 SC 494:

In this case, the plaintiff, a legislator, was illegally detained by the police on his way to a session of the legislature. The Supreme Court of India held that there was undeniably illegal detention, but it was not actionable since the plaintiff had voluntarily exposed himself to the risk of detention in the discharge of his public duties.

2. Vis Major (Act of God)

This defense applies when damages or injuries are caused by natural causes or forces which are so unusual that their happening could not, by the most ample foresight or prudence, be guarded against, as earthquakes, flood, etc. It operates to exculpate a defendant from an action in damages for injury arising from uncontrollable natural forces, the happening of which he cannot guard against.

Ramachandra v. Western India Theatres Ltd (1957):

In this case, a flood damaged a cinema hall. The court ruled the flood to be an Act of God, and thus the defendant was not liable for the damages caused by the flood.

3. Inevitable Accident

An Inevitable Accident is such an accident occurring without negligence and which no amount of care or foresight could avert. In a situation where, despite the fact that the defendant acted reasonably, there has been an accident, one will use this kind of defense. It involves a situation where the accident occurred unexpectedly and without fault, even when the defendant has taken all precautionary measures.

Legal terminology defines an accident as an "inevitable accident," where the injury cannot be attributed to any failure of duty by the defendant but becomes an unforeseen act that no degree of diligence could possibly avert.

N. K. Bhadani v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (1988):

The plaintiff was injured due to an explosion at a gas cylinder plant. The court ruled that such explosion was an inevitable accident since the defendant could not have foreseen that and taken reasonable precautionary measures to prevent it from occurring.

4. Necessity

The Necessity validates an action taken to prevent a greater harm. This is a defense where a person commits what would otherwise be considered a tort to avoid a greater harm. He will be said to have acted in a justifiable manner in case his actions were done to avoid injury or damage to a third party's property.

For example, if one person destroys property to contain the spread of fire in order to prevent the spread into an area that is worth more, it could be excusable on the pretext of necessity as it was committed for the purpose of diverting a greater danger.

K.K. Verma v. Union of India (2004):

The plaintiff suffered injuries during the removal of unauthorized structures on the railway property. The hon’ble Supreme Court observed that such demolition was necessary for preventing greater public harm by encroachments.

5. Private Defenses

Private Defense refer to legal justification for actions taken either for protection of self or one's property.

Private defenses include:

 Self-defense which allows one, while defending oneself against imminent harm, to apply such force as one genuinely perceives as necessary in order to prevent harm. The force used must be reasonable in relationship to the threat at hand.

 Defense of Property allows the use of reasonable force to prevent damage or theft of one's property. As in the case of self-defense, it means the force used should be proportionate and reasonable.

 Prevention of Crime under this category, acts done in order to prevent the commission of a crime are allowed. The force or action should be reasonable and directly related to preventing the criminal act.

Looking for the best nutritionist or dietitian in Delhi? Look no further than SGNC. Our accredited team offers expert nutrition services and courses in India, along with nutrition internships and training programs. Visit us now for optimal health and wellness!

The court upheld the defence of self-defence when the accused used force to repel an immediate threat. It found that the application of force was justified on the principle of private defence.

6. Novus Actus Interveniens (New Act Intervening)

"Novus Actus Interveniens" refers to an intervening act that breaks the causation chain. This would apply to the defense when there is some intervening, new, and unexpected event, considered to be the true cause of the plaintiff's injury, and this releases the defendant from liability.

An intervening act that is independent and adequate to break the chain of causation that had been established between the defendant's conduct and the harm which a plaintiff has suffered will be considered to break the chain of causation, and he will not be held liable.

For instance, in cases where a defendant's negligence has resulted in minor injury, which is then aggravated by an unforeseeable medical error leading to substantial harm, the medical error itself may amount to a novus actus interveniens.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. NEPC India Ltd (2006):

The Supreme Court held that an intervening act of a third party that could not have been foreseen can break the chain of causation, freeing the original defendant from liability for the eventual damage caused.

7. Statutory Authorit

Where the defense is based upon actions taken in pursuance of the express authority of a statute. This is a defense where an act of a defendant, which might otherwise constitute a tort, has been authorized by legislation. In other words, any adherence to applicable statutory conditions serves as a defense if there is liability.

For example, a statute may authorize an act that would otherwise be unlawful. A defendant who acts in accordance with that statute shall therefore not be found liable due to any resultant damage.

S.K. Bhattacharjee v. Union of India 1999, 91COMPCAS37

It was held that anything done in the exercise of a statutory authority where a man causes damage to another is not, generally speaking, actionable if it is within the statutory framework.

8. Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Authority

This defense applies to act acting in their judicial or quasi-judicial capacity. This privilege extends to judicial officers - including judges - and also to quasi-judicial officials - for example administrative tribunals - so long as they act within the course of their lawful authority and jurisdiction.

The tort liability does not in general attach to acts performed by such officials in carrying out their official functions. Thus no action for damages would lie against a judge who renders a decision or against an administrative officer who holds a hearing, so long as these acts are performed in the course of their official duties and authority.

P. N. Kumar v. State of Kerala (2004):

The court sustained the immunity of judicial officers from tort liability for acts done in good faith in carrying on their duties, so that protection extends to judicial functions.

9. Parental and Quasi-Parental Authority

This defense applies to acts done by parents or guardians in the exercise of their authority over minors. Parental or quasi-parental authority is a defense in cases where the parents or guardians have reasonably disciplined their child, or have made decisions concerning the care and control of said child.

Normally, it is not held to be tortious if such acts are within the reasonable scope of parental authority. Based on this principle, parents and guardians are expected to discipline and educate the child, and therefore, an action in those areas could be privileged against tort.

Smt. Sushila v. State of Rajasthan AIR1995RAJ90:

The court upheld the defense of parental authority and laid down that actions by a parent in disciplining a child, when considered reasonable, would not be actionable.