1) INTRODUCTION:

* The word “Tort” has been derived from Latin Word

“Tortum” which means twisted or crooked or unlawful.
* According to Limitation Act of 1963, Torts means a
civil wrong which is not a mere breach of trust or breach of contract.
* Torts have three primary purposes,
a) To recover damages to compensate
someone for their injuries.
b) To determine whether another Party is
liable for an injury to hold them financially
responsible.
c) To deter other parties from causing similar
harm.
* What is Liability in torts? Liability in torts refers to
responsibility for a wrongful action. Types of liability in torts. There
are three types of liability in torts. They are strict liability, absolute
liability, and vicarious liability.
* Not everyone are held liable. There are certain
essentials or conditions that have to be met to make a person held liable
for their tortious action. Let’s see some maxims that says about liability.
I. Injuria Sine Damno :
It means that violation of legal rights without
causing any actual harm, loss or damage to the plaintiff. Here,
defendant is accountable for the violated rights even if there is no loss.
Let’s see a case law to understand this maxim better.
CASE LAW: Ashby v. White
CITATION: (1703) 92 ER 126

1|Page
FACTS:
The plaintiff (Mr. Ashby) was a qualified voter at parliamentary
election, but the defendant (Mr. White), a returning officer, denied to
take the plaintiff’s vote.
JUDGEMENT:
The judgement in Ashby v White was delivered by Lord Holt C.J., who
presided over the case. Lord Holt held that:
There was a violation of Mr. Ashby’s fundamental
right to vote.
Even though Ashby did not sustain any actual loss
or damage, his fundamental right was violated.
Ashby was entitled to a remedy and could claim
damages against Mr. White.
The success of the candidate Ashby intended to
vote for was irrelevant to the right to claim
damages

II. Damnum Sine Injuria:

It means that damage which is not coupled with
an unauthorized interference with the plaintiff’s lawful right. Causing of
damage, however substantial, to another person is not actionable in law
unless there is also violation of legal right of a plaintiff. Let’s see a case
law to understand this maxim better.
CASE LAW: Gloucester Grammar School Case
CITATION: (1410) YB 11 Hen IV
FACT :
The defendant, a schoolmaster set up a rival school to that of
plaintiff’s. As a result plaintiff had to reduce their fees from 40 pence to
12 pence per scholar per quarter.
JUDGEMENT:
2|Page
 The court held that Gloucester Grammar School lacked
grounds for a case against the defendant since they
experienced financial losses but no legal rights of the
plaintiff were violated.
 The situation was seen as a typical scenario of business
rivalry between Gloucester Grammar School and the new
school.
The court unequivocally affirmed that Gloucester Grammar
School’s claim against the defendant was unsubstantiated,
emphasizing that the defendant hadn’t engaged in any
wrongful actions against them, resulting in no legal harm to
the school.
Hence, Gloucester Grammar School did not suffer any
injury.

III. Mens rea and actus reus :

Generally, in criminal law, act of a person alone
cannot make him/her liable. Mens rea (guilty mind) is also
required. A man, therefore, is not ordinarily punishable for
something which he never intended or which he could not
foresee.
Here we saw about torts, liability and some
maxims related to it. Now let’s see what are the reasons that a
defendant can provide in court to avoid these liability.
2) GENERAL DEFFENCE:
* General defences are a set of special circumstance, due to
which, the tort feasor can be absolved from liability even though
they fulfil all the essentials of torts.

3|Page
 * In short, general defences are the excuse/ reasons which a
defendant can use to avoid liability.
* There are some essentials to be which must be fulfilled to
use these general defences.
3) TYPES OF GENERAL DEFENCE (OR) KINDS OF
GENERAL DEFENCE:
* Valente non – fit Injuria, plain tiff’s fault, inevitable
accident, Act of god, private Defence, Mistake, Necessity,
Statutory authority are some kinds of general defences. Here we
will see 4 kinds of general defence in detail. They are,
3.1) VOLENTI NON – FIT INJURIA:
* According to this, when a person consents to the infliction
of some harm upon himself, he has no remedy for that in tort.
* Consent are of two types,
a. Express Consent
b. Implied Consent
* The Express Consent refers to clear and direct statement to
accept something.
* The Implied consent is a consent that is not given
explicitly, but which can be inferred based on the action of
individual and the facts of a particular situation.
* In short, it the plaintiff voluntarily agrees to suffer some
harm, he is not allowed to complain for that and his consent
server as a good defence against him.
* For the maxim violent non – fit Injuria to apply, two points
have to be proved.
4|Page
 a. Plaintiff knew that there is risk agreed to suffer
the harm.
b. He, knowing the same, agreed to suffer the harm.
* Valente non- fit Injuria cannot be used it.
a. Consent is obtained under compulsion (i.e. usually
seen in master – servant relationship)
b. Consents obtained by fraud.
Let’s see case laws to understand better.
(a) CASE LAW: Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club.
CITATION: (1933) 1 KB 205
COURT : House of Lards
JUDGES : Lord Greer Ljj and Lord Scrutton
FACT :
 The plaintiff, Christopher Hall was a spectator
at a motor car race being held at Brooks land on
a track owned by the defendant company.
 During the race, there was a collision between
two cars, one of which was thrown among the
spectators, thereby, injuring the plaintiff.
ISSUES:
 Was it reasonably foreseeable to prevent the
cars from crossing the barrier?
 Was the defendant Company guilty of any
negligence whereby injury is caused to the
plaintiff.
5|Page
 JUDGEMENT:
 The motor track had been in use for 23 years
and this was the first time an accident of this
nature occurred. Hence, it is not reasonably fore
sable to prevent this accident.
 No barricade could prevent this accident and a
reasonable man couldn’t think of hitting cars at
an angle where the car would bump off the
railing and therefore, Brooklands motor Racing
Company was not liable.
 It was the duty of the plaintiff to take the
necessary precautions as he gave his implied
consent to the risk of injury in the sport at the
time of purchasing the ticket. Hence, it was held
that defendant is not liable and there was no
damages given to plaintiff.
(b) CASE LAW: Lakshmi Rajan v. Malar Hospital Ltd
CITATION: 2(2007) CPJ 17 (NC)
FACT:
 Lakshmi Rajan’s ordeal began when she
consented to undergo surgery to remove the
bump in her breast. The bump, as established,
had no bearing on her uterus or any other
reproductive organ.
 However, to her shock and dismay, she
discovered post – surgery that not only was the
6|Page
 bump excised but her uterus had also been
removed without any justification or prior
consent.
JUDGEMENT:
 The court found Malar Hospital Ltd. Liable for
inadequate service and unauthorised medical
intervention.
 Key to the court’s decision was the
determination that Lakshmi Rayan’s consent was
obtained under duress and did not extent to the
removal of uterus. This, the Tamil Nadu State
consumer Disputes redressed commission
delivered a verdict in favour of Lakshmi Rajan.
(3.2) PRIVATE DEFENCE:
* The Law permits use of reasonable force to protect
one’s person or property.
* It the defendant uses the force which is necessary for
self-defence, he will not be made liable for the harm caused
thereby.
* Elements of private defence.
a. Apprehension of harm
b. Unlawful act
c. proportionate force
d. No alternate remedy
e. Continuity of threat
f. Absence of pre- emotive
7|Page
 g. No excessive force.
Let’s see case laws to understand the private defence better.
(a) CASE LAW: Bird v. Holbrook
CITATION: 130 Eng. Rep 911 (C.P.1825)
FACT :
 Defendant occupied a walled garden in which
defendant grew valuable tulips. Defendant’s
garden had been robbed of flowers & roots worth
20 pounds.
 To protect his property, Defendant decided to
set up a spring gun in the garden.
 The defendant had put up spring gun in his
garden without firing any notice and the
trespasser was seriously injured by its automatic
discharge.
JUDGEMENT:
It was held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover
damages as the force used here was greater than the occasion
demanded.
(b) CASE LAW: Ramanuja Mandali V. M. Gangan.
CITATION: AIR 1984 MAD103
FACT :
 The defendant, a land owner had laid some live
electric on his land.
 The plaintiff while crossing it at 10 P.m in
order to reach his own land, received a shock
from the wire and sustained injuries.
8|Page
  The defendant had given no visible warning
about such wire.
JUDGEMENT:
As the force used here is more than the required, it
was held that defendant is liable for the plaintiff’s injury
(3.3) PLAINTIFF’S FAULT:
* Under the law of contract, one of the principles is that
no court will aid a person who found cause of action upon an
immoral or an illegal act.
* “Ex turpi cause non Oritur action” – means from a
immoral cause no action arises. In short, it means that if the basis
of the action of the plaintiff is an unlawful contract, he will not,
in general, succeed to his action.
* Essentials of plaintiff’s fault (or) plaintiff-the
wrongdoer is
a) The plaintiff must have contributed to the
harm or injury suffered.
b) The plaintiff’s contribution to the harm must
be significant.
Let’s see a case law to understand this general defence better.
CASE LAW: Bird v. Holbrook
CITATION: 130 Eng. Rep 911 (C.P.1825)
FACT :
 Defendant occupied a walled garden in which
defendant grew valuable tulips. Defendant’s
9|Page
 garden had been robbed of flowers & roots worth
20 pounds.
 To protect his property, Defendant decided to
set up a spring gun in the garden.
 The defendant had put up spring gun in his
garden without firing any notice and the
trespasser was seriously injured by its automatic
discharge.
JUDGEMENT:
 The court ruled in favour of plaintiff in Bird v.
Holbrook, Holbrook, determining that defendant,
Bird, was not permitted to set a spring gun trap
without providing notice.
 Absence of warning led to the injury of an
innocent the trespasser, for which the defendant
was found liable for the damage.
(3.4) ACT OF GOD:
* Act of god is an inevitable accident with the
difference that in the case of Act of God, the resulting loss arises
out of the working of natural forces like exceptionally heavy
rainfall, storm, tempest, tides and volcanic eruption.
* Two important essentials that are needed for this
defence are
a) There must be working of natural forces.
b) The occurrence must be extraordinary and not
one which could be anticipated and reasonably guarded against.
Let’s see two case law to understand this defence better.
10 | P a g e
 a)CASE LAW: Ramalinga Nadar v. Narayana Reddiar
CITATION: AIR1971KER197

FACT :
 In Ramalinga Nadar v Narayana Reddiar, the
plaintiff, Ramalinga Nadar, booked goods with
the defendant, Narayana Reddiar, for
transportation. During the course of transit, the
goods were looted by a mob.
 The defendant argued that the looting was an
event beyond their control and should be
considered an Act of God, which would exempt
them from liability for the loss of the goods.
JUDGEMENT:
The Kerala High Court in Ramalinga Nadar vs
Narayana Reddiar held that the looting of goods by a mob could
not be classified as an Act of God. The court emphasised that
only those events which are caused solely by natural forces,
without any human intervention, can be termed as Acts of God.
Hence, the court concluded that the defendant could not be
exempted from liability.
b)CASE LAW: Nicholas v. Marsland
CITATION: (1876)2EXD1
FACT :
 There was an ornamental pool on the
defendants land. The pool contained various

11 | P a g e
 safeguards to prevent flooding, allowing excess
water to drain away naturally.
 However, a freak rainfall overwhelmed these
safeguards. This caused the water in the pool to
flood out onto the claimants land, damaging it.
 The claimant sued the defendant in negligence.

JUDGEMENT:
The court appeal held in favour of the defendant.
The defendant was not liable for the damage caused by the
flooding because it was not reasonably foreseeable.
4) IMPORTANCE OF GENERAL DEFENCE:
The importance of general defense in tort law includes several
key aspects:
1. Legal Protection: General defenses, such as
consent or necessity, protect individuals from liability when their
actions, although potentially harmful, are justified under certain
circumstances.
2. Fairness: Allowing defenses promotes fairness in
the legal system by considering the context of actions and the
intentions behind them.
3. Public Policy: Some defenses align with public
policy interests, such as promoting self-defense or encouraging
responsible behaviour in emergencies.

12 | P a g e
 4. Reduction of Liability: Defendants can use general
defenses to mitigate or completely avoid liability, which can lead
to more just outcomes in tort cases.
5. Clarification of Boundaries: General defenses help
clarify the boundaries of acceptable behavior, guiding
individuals on what actions are permissible without incurring
liability.
6. Encouragement of Social Responsibility: By
recognizing defenses like necessity, the law encourages
individuals to take actions that may be beneficial to society, even
if they result in harm to another party.
7. Protection of Rights: Defenses such as self-defense
protect individual rights, allowing people to defend themselves
against wrongful acts without fear of legal repercussions.
8. Judicial Economy: A robust system of defenses can
streamline court proceedings by resolving cases more efficiently
when clear defenses are available.
9. Balancing Interests: General defenses help balance
the interests of plaintiffs and defendants, ensuring that not all
harmful acts result in liability, especially when justified.
10. Promotion of Settlement: Knowledge of potential
defenses can lead to more settlements outside of court, as parties
may recognize the likelihood of a successful defense.
These points highlight how general defenses in tort law serve to
protect rights, promote fairness, and contribute to a balanced
legal system.

13 | P a g e
5) CONCLUSION:
In recent times, an abundant matters have been
presented before courts which mostly contain the cases of torts
and the concept of general defences is highly applicable when it
comes to these cases.
In conclusion, the general defenses in tort law
provide essential protections for defendants against liability.
Understanding these defenses is crucial for balancing the rights
of individuals and ensuring fair outcomes in tort cases.
They serve to uphold principles of justice while
allowing for reasonable conduct in various circumstances.
Ultimately, the application of these defenses can significantly
impact the resolution of tort claims and the protection of
individual freedoms.

14 | P a g e
6) BIBLIOGRAPHY:
 LAW OF TORTS by R.K.Bangia

7) WEBLIOGRAPHY:
 https://lawbhoomi.com/general-defences-in-tort/
 https://lawctopus.com/clatalogue/clat-pg/general-
defences-tort-law/
 https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-
8283-general-defences-in-tort-an-overview.html

15 | P a g e
 S.No TITLE PAGE NO
1. Introduction 1-3
- Definition of torts
- Purposes of Tort
- Liability in Torts
- Maxims
- Injuria Sine Damno
- Damnum Sine Injuria
- Mens Rea and Actus Reus
2. General Defenses in Torts 3-4
- Definition of General Defenses
- Essentials of General Defenses
3. Types of General Defenses 4-12
3.1 Volenti Non-Fit Injuria
- Definition and Application
- Case Laws:
- Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club
- Lakshmi Rajan v. Malar Hospital
Ltd
3.2 Private Defense
- Definition and Application
- Elements of Private Defense
- Case Laws:
- Bird v. Holbrook
- Ramanuja Mandali v. M. Gangan
3.3 Plaintiff’s Fault
- Definition and Application
- Essentials of Plaintiff’s Fault
- Case Law:
- Bird v. Holbrook

16 | P a g e
 3.4 Act of God
- Definition and Application
- Case Laws:
- Ramalinga Nadar v. Narayana
Reddiar
- Nicholas v. Marsland
4. Importance of General Defenses 12-13
- Legal Protection
- Fairness
- Public Policy
- Reduction of Liability
- Clarification of Boundaries
- Encouragement of Social Responsibility
- Protection of Rights
- Judicial Economy
- Balancing Interests
- Promotion of Settlement
5. Conclusion 14
6. Bibliography 15
7. Webliography 15

17 | P a g e