This article is written by Akshara Maheshwari of 3rd Semester of Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur, an intern under Legal Vidhiya
ABSTRACT
Inevitable accidents and Private Defense are two of those defenses which the defendant can claim under the law of torts. This article will delve into various aspects of these defenses including the discussion on inevitable accidents, their judicial interpretation in several cases and, also about the difference and correlation between inevitable accidents and the act of God. It will further discuss about the private defense under law of torts and the essentials which results in successful claim of the same.
This article is a window to investigate the matters and several cases of inevitable accident and private defense through various court judgement and their assistance in further enhancement of this law as a whole.
Keywords
Inevitable accident, Act of God, Private Defense, Essentials of Private Defense, Judiciary on Inevitable Accidents.
INTRODUCTION
The intent behind the imposition of the tort law is just one of the numerous ways that it varies from other laws. The “civil wrongs” that are covered by tort law are those that are considered civil in nature and are not discouraged using criminal penalties. Therefore, tort law deals with civil wrongs, which are typically punished by having to pay damages. To make up for the sufferings that the plaintiff endured because of the respondent’s wrongdoings, damages are the monetary compensation that the plaintiff receives from the respondent. There are three different kinds of damages: nominal, compensatory, and punitive. If the party who was wronged is entitled to damages, the respondent may counterclaim the damages by raising strong defenses.
Global jurisprudence has duly acknowledged the idea that self-preservation is an innate human instinct.[1] Many democratic nations around the world allow for the use of reasonable force in response to threats of using force. The right to use reasonable force to defend oneself or one’s property has been granted by law. The right includes the general protection of other people’s life and property in addition to the protection of one’s own life, property, and family. Therefore, an action taken while using this right that causes harm.
Before making an appropriate ruling, the court must hear the complaint and the defenses from both parties. The law of torts provides several defenses, including necessity, volenti non fit injuria, private defense, an act of God, and others. This paper will discuss how to defend a “inevitable accident” and “Private Defense”
INEVITABLE ACCIDENT
According to the specific defense, an event or action is considered “inevitable” if it could not have been prevented even if the wrongdoer had taken all reasonable care and precautions. An inevitable accident is something that could not have been avoided even with the best efforts of a reasonable and prudent person, according to renowned 17th-century jurist Sir Pollock. Two requirements must be met for the defense of inevitable accident to be valid. These requirements are:
- It was not intentional damage.
- Despite exercising every care, caution, and ability that the person who committed the act could have used, the circumstances surrounding the damage could not have been avoided.
An example of an inevitable accident in real life would be something like this: A was passing a reasonably busy intersection. The vehicle received regular maintenance and was in excellent shape. Abruptly, as A was crossing the signal, the car’s brakes failed. This caused A to lose control of the vehicle and swerve to the left, where it struck a bullock cart that was parked there. Since A took all the necessary precautions to guarantee that there would be no mechanical failures, she can spearhead the defense of “inevitable accident.” Still, she was not prepared for the unexpected brake failure. As previously mentioned, the bullock cart’s driver did not intentionally cause the damage, and the car’s driver had taken all reasonable safety precautions.
JUDICIARY ON INEVITABLE ACCIDENTS
When evaluating the plea of an unavoidable accident, the court will check for the following:
1. Whether the incident really happened outside the tort-doer’s actual sphere of influence.
2. If, considering the circumstances, the tortfeasor had taken reasonable precautions.
3. If the precaution had been taken, could the tort-doer have avoided the circumstance?
When discussing the defense of inevitable accidents, the courts had to decide who would bear the burden of proof. The first to rule on that was in Homes v. Mather[2], (1875) LR 10 Ex 261, where the plaintiff had the burden of proof to establish the following:
A. the defense was based on fabrications;
B. the respondent had reasonable time to predict the incident; and
C. the respondent failed to take the required safety measures.
But in a later case called Stanley v. Powell[3], (1891) 1 QB 86, this was overturned. The plaintiff and defendant in the Stanley case were gun owners who attended a pheasant shooting party. The plaintiff was shot by the defendant’s gun after it bounced off a nearby object, injuring her. The defendant had aimed the gun at a pheasant. When the plaintiff brought the case to court, the defendant argued that the accident was unavoidable. The defendant was found to have had no reasonable expectation that the bullet would ricochet and strike the plaintiff, according to the court’s decision in favor of the defendant. The fact that the burden of proof in this case is on the defendant to demonstrate that his actions were the result of events outside of his control is another significant ruling.
In a similar vein, the court again found in favor of the defendant in Hidasi v. Hidasi[4], 2011 BCSC 583, where the defendant had driven on a slick road with the appropriate caution, but the car still slipped and injured the plaintiff. The defense, which contended that the car’s mechanical malfunction that resulted in the slip was outside the defendant’s scope of control or foreseeability.
Following this, several case laws were developed that addressed who should have the burden of proof—the plaintiff or the defendant. Ultimately, most of these courts came to the nearly unanimous conclusion that the burden of proof should be divided between the parties according to each individual case.
A. Krishna Patra v. Odisha State Electricity Board[5] 2 (1998) ACC 367, 1998 ACJ 155, AIR 997 ORI 109 is the most well-known Indian case on this topic. It addressed the distinction between tort defenses for inevitable accidents and negligence. The defendant argued that the woman’s death from electrocution by a naked electrician on the road was an inevitable accident, while the defense in question had pleaded negligence. The court ruled that the electricity board was unable to raise the defense of the unavoidable mishap because they had neglected to take the appropriate safety precautions, such as periodically monitoring the electrician while he worked for them. As a result, the defendant company was given a compensation award of Rs. 50,000 to be given to the plaintiff who was wronged.
ACT OF GOD AND INEVITABLE ACCIDENT
Because both the Act of God and the Inevitable Accident tort defenses satisfy the requirement of events beyond the tort doer’s control, they are frequently regarded as equivalent. The primary distinction between the two, though, is that the latter is not limited to natural phenomena, while the former is.
An example of the two would look something like this: A was traveling across the only accessible bridge to get to his relative’s home, which is a narrow road above it. It was only after repeatedly checking the weather report the day before, which indicated sunny and pleasant conditions, that he had made the decision to drive. But a strong downpour began to approach halfway along the road, and before A could pull over to the side, the bridge gave way under the force of the thunder, sending the vehicle skidding and slamming into a pole, injuring the plaintiff who was nearby. This might be a divine act.
However, A was traversing the same bridge while driving. However, if the bridge was beginning to show signs of wear and tear and the car’s movement was the reason it collapsed, that would be considered an “inevitable accident” because it was the result of human error.
PRIVATE DEFENSE UNDER LAW OF TORTS
It is legal to use reasonable force to defend one’s own moveable and immovable property. Only in situations where there was an immediate threat and using force to repel an invasion was the last resort is the use of reasonable force justified on the ground. Only in situations where there is a legitimate fear that someone else may use force can reasonable force be used. That will not subject you to tort liability. However, to use reasonable force, one must provide sufficient justification. Judge Donovan noted that the law of private defenses is not written; rather, it is ingrained in us from birth. It is not something we have learned or been taught through tradition, but rather something we have learned from nature itself. The use of reasonable force is an admissible defense in court if there is an immediate threat to life and no other legal avenues of relief are available.
In the case of Bird v. Holbrooke[6], the defendant set up a spring gun trap in his garden to catch the intruder who had been stealing items. Nevertheless, the defendant failed to post a warning sign on the wall or at the entrance following the installation of the spring gun trap. The plaintiff inadvertently entered the defendant’s garden while pursuing an escaped bird. The plaintiff sustained injuries because of the spring gun trap being set when they entered the defendant’s garden. After reviewing the case’s facts, the Honorable Court noted that the defendant is responsible for any damages resulting from injuries caused by the air spring gun going off if the trap is set up without providing sufficient notice. In a related case, the Honorable Court stressed that no damages would be granted for injuries caused by a spring gun going off if sufficient notice was posted on the entrance following installation of the spring gun.[7]
“Where a person commits a tort in defense of himself or his property, he is not necessarily liable if the act has been in the circumstances of a reasonable nature,” according to L.B. Curzon, is the definition of private defense.[8] Under the Law of Torts, a private defense is defined as “an action taken in reasonable defense of one’s person or property” by Osborn’s Concise Law Dictionary. It is admissible as a defense in a tort action. the right to privately defend oneself, one’s family, and most likely anyone else against illegal force.[9]
ESSENTIALS OF PRIVATE DEFENSE
1. There should be an immediate danger to one’s own life, property, or the lives or property of others, leaving no time for one to seek assistance from the closest authority. A person S could not legitimately use force against another person E just because he believes that E may attack him soon, nor could using force as a form of retaliation after the attack has ended.[10]
In Morris v. Nugent[11], the defendant’s dog bit him out of rage as he was walking past the plaintiff’s house. In self-defense, the defendant lifted his gun and shot the dog. He did not stop shooting the dog even though it ran away. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the court, demanding damages. The accused contended that he was acting in accordance with his right to self-defense. The defendant’s action was deemed unjustified by the court because the dog was escaping from him and there was no immediate threat to his life.[12]
2. The use of force should only be done when it is necessary to repel the invasion. “No right is to be abused, and the right of self-defense is one that may be easily abused, even though the law recognizes the right to repel force with force.”
3. The amount of force applied ought to be commensurate with the perceived urgency of the situation.[13] It should never be more than what is necessary. The specific facts and circumstances of each case determine what constitutes a reasonable force.
The law allows for the taking of any reasonable steps that may be required to safeguard property. Only in situations where there is a legitimate fear that someone else may use force can reasonable force be used. That will not subject you to tort liability. However, to use reasonable force, one must provide sufficient justification.
CONCLUSION
In summary, handling an inevitable accident can be challenging because the court must determine whether the incident qualifies as a negligent act or as a legitimate accident that was not anticipated by the wrongdoer. Nonetheless, this is a very useful defense for drivers who cause injuries accidentally or without intending to.
Private defenses under the Law of Torts are not available against non-offensive acts. It can be used against any attacker, regardless of their mental state or level of competence, mistake or not. Overt attacks are defeated by the right, regardless of their meaning or intention. When someone’s life or limb is in danger and there is no other way to protect them, it still exists even though innocent people are hurt. Whether self-defense is immediately necessary and whether the defendant’s adoption of that specific course of action was immediately necessary are the two main questions to be answered.
REFERENCES
- (1875) LR 10 Ex 261.
- (1891) 1 QB 86.
- 130 eng. Rep. 911 (1825).
- 2 (1998) ACC 367, 1998 ACJ 155, AIR 997 ORI 109.
- 2011 BCSC 583.
- 7 C&P 572 (1836).
- Cockcroft v. Smith (1706) 11 Mod.Rep.48.
- L. B. Curzon, A Dictionary of Law, 289, (1983).
- Mc. Neill v. Hill (1929) 2 D.L.R 296, Per Martin, J.A.
- Roger Bird, Osborn’s Concise Law Dictionary, 278, (1983).
- Suresh Singhal v. State (Delhi Administration), 2017(2) SCC 737.
[1] Suresh Singhal v. State (Delhi Administration), 2017(2) SCC 737.
[2] (1875) LR 10 Ex 261.
[3] (1891) 1 QB 86.
[4] 2011 BCSC 583.
[5] 2 (1998) ACC 367, 1998 ACJ 155, AIR 997 ORI 109.
[6] 130 eng. Rep. 911 (1825).
[7] Id.
[8] L. B. Curzon, A Dictionary of Law, 289, (1983).
[9] Roger Bird, Osborn’s Concise Law Dictionary, 278, (1983).
[10] Cockcroft v. Smith (1706) 11 Mod.Rep.48.
[11] 7 C&P 572 (1836).
[12] Id.
[13] Mc. Neill v. Hill (1929) 2 D.L.R 296, Per Martin, J.A.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.
