There are fifteen defences which can take in an action for tort. They constitute, what applying is termed as “justifications or grounds of immunity from liability to an action in tort”. They are the classes of wrongs which stand outside the sphere of ‘tort’. These are as it were, “the various conditions which, when present, Will prevent, an act from being wrongful, which in their absence, would be a wrong.”

The rules of immunity which limit the rules of liability – Sir Frederick Pollock.

They are:

1. Private defence: Harm inflicted in defence of one’s person or property is justified if it was reasonably necessary for that purpose. Self – defence is a permissible defence against an action on torts. It may be that the provisions of section 97 and 102, IPC in terms do not apply to a suit based on torts, but the principle of self – defence is applicable.

2. Contributory Negligence: If some unlawful act or conduct on the part of the plaintiff is connected with the harm suffered by him as part of the same transaction, the plaintiff is disabling from recovering damages for an injury caused to him by reason of he himself being a wrongdoer.

3. Volenti Non Fit Injuria: It is also a good defence to an action against tortious liability that the plaintiff has voluntary given up or waived a right against the defendant therefore he cannot enforce the same right against the defendant.

4. Inevitable Accident: It is that which could not possibly be prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill. If in the execution of a lawful act by lawful means, done with the degree of care which the circumstances require, an accident happens, no action lies for any injury resulting there from.

5. Necessity: No action lies for acts done of necessity to avoid a great harm. Thus, if a man throws water on his neighbor’s goods to save them from fire or pulls down his houses to stop a fire, he is not liable.

6. Parental and Quasi – parental authority: Parents or persons, in loco parentis, for the purpose of correcting what is evil in the child inflict moderate and reasonable corporal punishment. The authority of school master is, while it exists, the same as that of a parent.

7. Exercise of common rights: The exercise of common rights for lawful rights for a lawful purpose and in an unlawful manner is no wrong even if it causes damage. It will be damnum sine injuria.

8. Statutory authority: If the legislature has authorized the doing of an act, no action can be maintained for that act and the person injured by such authorized act will have no remedy except the one provided in the legislation itself.

9. Judicial acts: The next defence to an action in tort is that the act done by the defendant was a judicial act. No action will lie against a judge for act done or words spoken in his judicial capacity in a court of justice. The remedy for judicial errors is in the form of appeal or revision. But a judge of the interior court is not protected if the act was beyond his jurisdiction.

10. Quasi – judicial acts: The persons or bodies, such as universities, colleges, committee of societies and clubs, inns of courts, etc. exercising quasi – judicial powers are protected from civil liability if they observe:

•Rules of natural justice

•The particular statutory or conventional rules, which may prescribe their course of action.

11. Executive acts: No action lies against a public officer for any act done by him in the regular enforcement of any sentence or process of law, or the maintenance of peace.

12. Act of state: An act of state is an act injurious to the person or property of some person who is not at time of that act a subject of the crown, done by a representative of the crown and either previously sanctioned or subsequently ratified by the crown.

13. Mistake of fact: A mistake of fact is no excuse except in those cases where motive does an essential ingredient constitutes the wrong.

14. Act causing slight harm: The law does not take account of trifles. Nothing is a wrong of which a person of ordinary sense and temper would not complain. The principle is also recognized in section 95 of Indian Penal Code. But the defence does not apply where there is an infringement of a legal right.

15. Plaintiff a wrong doer: A person is not disabled from recovering damages for an injury caused to him by reason of him himself being a wrong doer, unless some unlawful act or conduct on his own part is connected with the harm suffered by him as part of the same transaction.

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.

We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge