Site icon Legal Vidhiya

PLAINTIFF’S DEFAULT AND ACT OF GOD

Admin
Advertisements
Spread the love

This article is written by Aanchal Agarwal of 2nd Semester of Bharati Vidyapeeth New Law College, Pune, an intern under Legal Vidhiya           

ABSTRACT

This article provides an insightful overview of tort law and its corresponding defences. It begins by giving introduction about what the article holds then it talks about what a tort is and what is the law of torts. In addition, talking about what a defence is, who is a plaintiff and a defendant. Later, it delves into the realm of general defences within the ambit of tort law, with a particular emphasis on two pivotal defences: Plaintiff’s Default and Act of God. These defences are explained in simple terms, making them easy to understand. The article also looks at real life cases to show how these defences have been used in court. Finally, the article concludes by listing the references consulted and making it a reliable source for learning more about this area of law. This article is a helpful guide to understanding two key defences in tort law and is useful for anyone interested in law or studying this topic. Readers are encouraged to explore this article for a deeper understanding of the two general defences in the tort law: Plaintiff’s Default and Act of God.

Keywords

Tort Law, Plaintiff’s default, Act of God, Civil wrongs, Liability, Compensation, Plaintiff, Default, Legal remedy, Defences

INTRODUCTION

Imagine being intentionally pushed in a crowded public place, resulting in severe injury to a child, and then being unjustly blamed and punished for it. Not fair, right? This is precisely why tort law exists. Even if you didn’t intend to harm anyone, you find yourself held accountable for someone else’s action.

Tort law holds a vital place in our legal system. It addresses civil wrongs and provides recourse for individuals or businesses harmed by the actions of others. A critical aspect of tort law involves the use of defences, which enable defendants to mitigate or even eliminate their liability for the harm caused. Two significant defences include instances where the injured party contributed to their own harm and situations where unforeseen events, like natural disasters, are beyond human control and cause harm. Understanding these defences is essential as they illustrate how the legal system endeavours to ensure fairness when harm occurs.

WHAT IS A TORT

Tort, derived from the Latin word ‘Tortum’ meaning twisted or crooked, encompasses civil wrongs for which the remedy is a common law action for unliquidated damages. These wrongs extend beyond breaches of contract or trust, constituting a distinct category of legal liability.

Definition by Salmond: It is a civil wrong for which remedy is common law action for unliquidated damages and which is not exclusively the breach of contract or breach of trust.[1]

According to section 2(m) of Limitation Act: Tort means a civil wrong which is not exclusively a branch of contract or breach of trust.[2]

Essential features of tort law include:

  1. Violation of the plaintiff’s rights or causing harm, whether emotional, physical, or financial.
  2. The defendant must have owed a duty of care to the plaintiff to refrain from violating their rights or causing harm, with a subsequent breach of that duty by the defendant.

These elements form the foundation of tort law, providing a framework for addressing civil wrongs and seeking redress for damages incurred by individuals or entities.

WHAT IS LAW OF TORTS

The law of torts constitutes a pivotal branch of jurisprudence, wielding authority over societal conduct by delineating the rights and obligations of individuals through the prism of prevailing norms of reasonableness and public welfare. At its core, it seeks to redress grievances by offering restitution to the aggrieved party. This compensation hinges upon the extent of harm inflicted, reflecting the fundamental principle of justice and fairness.

It is worth noting that the law of torts remains uncodified, mirroring the dynamic nature of our ever-evolving society. As societal norms evolve and moral compasses shift, so too does the landscape of justice. The contours of liability are molded by the changing tides of societal expectations and values, ensuring that legal remedies remain responsive to the shifting needs and concerns of the populace. Thus, the law of torts serves as a flexible instrument of justice, capable of adapting to the exigencies of a rapidly changing world, guiding how people behave in society by outlining individual rights and responsibilities based on what’s considered reasonable and beneficial for the public.

WHAT IS A DEFENCE

Defence encompasses various means of protection against harm or danger, manifesting in forms such as arguments, actions, fortifications, legal strategies, medications, and more. Specifically, within legal contexts, defence denotes the strategic approach employed by a defendant to refute the claims brought forth by the plaintiff in a lawsuit.

WHO IS CALLED A DEFENDANT

A defendant is the party against whom a lawsuit is filed, commonly referred to as the accused party. In civil cases, defendants are typically sued for compensation or damages, while in criminal cases, they are accused of committing a crime[3]. It’s important to note that being a defendant does not automatically imply guilt or criminality. Instead, it signifies that the individual or entity is facing allegations of wrongdoing and has the opportunity, as well as the right, to defend themselves in court.

WHO IS CALLED A PLAINTIFF

The individual or entity initiating legal action against another party is known as the plaintiff. The plaintiff assumes the role of bringing forth a complaint, seeking redress through the legal system[4]. Any individual who perceives a violation of their legal rights or has suffered harm has the option to act as a plaintiff and file a complaint against the alleged wrongdoer. However, being a plaintiff does not inherently ensure a favourable outcome; rather, it provides the opportunity to present evidence and seek damages, particularly in civil cases. The responsibilities and obligations of the plaintiff can vary depending on the nature of the case and the legal framework in which it operates.

GENERAL DEFENCES IN LAW OF TORTS

General defences in the law of torts serve as legal justifications or excuses for the defendant, aiming to mitigate or nullify the punishment for the harm inflicted upon the plaintiff. These defences safeguard the defendant’s legal rights and interests while also preventing unjust liability for actions beyond their control. Even if the defendant’s actions directly result in committing a tort, certain circumstances warrant leniency or exoneration. However, the application of these defences varies depending on the situation at hand. It is essential to recognize that these defences are not absolute but are contingent upon specific conditions and legal principles. Here are some of the general defences:

  1. Volenti non fit Injuria: This legal maxim asserts that the plaintiff knowingly consented to any harm inflicted upon them. This consent must be both voluntary and informed, devoid of any misrepresentation, fraud, or coercion. For instance, if an individual willingly agrees to participate in a driving test and subsequently sustains injuries while driving, they are precluded from litigating against the company, given their prior consent.
  2. Necessity: This defence materializes when the defendant’s tortious conduct becomes imperative to avert a more severe harm. Consider the scenario where an individual hurls a hazardous object onto someone’s property, posing a threat to the owner. Another person trespasses onto the property to remove the object, thereby committing a trespass, in the interest of preventing greater harm. In such a case, the defence of necessity could be invoked.
  3. Act of God: This refers to any unforeseeable natural event that a reasonable person could not forestall. Examples include earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, and other natural calamities.
  4. Plaintiff the wrongdoer: This defence posits that the plaintiff’s own actions contributed to their harm or injury. Consequently, the plaintiff may not be entitled to full damages, especially if their actions were a significant factor in the occurrence of the harm. For instance, if a plaintiff drives on the wrong side of the road and is involved in an accident, their ability to file a lawsuit may be compromised due to their own negligence. 
  5. Mistake: This defence asserts that the defendant acted under a reasonable misconception of fact, which unintentionally led to a tortious act. Such mistakes, which could be made by any reasonable person, may mitigate liability.
  6. Statutory authority: When an action is sanctioned by legislation or executed with the authorization of the legislature, the defendant may be exempt from liability.
  7. Private defence: Individuals are permitted by law to safeguard their life and property. Reasonable self-defence measures can be employed to avert harm, provided that the use of force is proportional and justified. For example, if someone assaults you with their fists, you are entitled to defend yourself with a commensurate level of force, but resorting to lethal force would exceed the bounds of reasonable self-defence.
  8. Inevitable accident: This defence contends that an unexpected event occurred which a reasonable person could not have prevented even with the utmost precautions. For instance, if someone offers you a ride and their car’s wheel unexpectedly collapse, resulting in injury, this would qualify as an inevitable accident.

Focusing on our subject matter, we shall delve deeper into the concepts of Plaintiff’s Default and Act of God.

PLAINTIFF’S DEFAULT

Plaintiff’s default refers to a scenario in which the plaintiff bears responsibility for their own harm or injury, thereby intending to file a lawsuit against the defendant to seek damages. This situation arises when the plaintiff’s actions directly contribute to the incident for which they seek legal recourse. Moreover, Plaintiff’s default also occurs when the plaintiff fails to adhere to the court’s requirements after initiating a lawsuit against another party.

Functioning as a fundamental defence strategy for the defendant, Plaintiff’s default asserts that the plaintiff’s own actions precipitated the unfortunate event, absolving the defendant of liability. It argues that since the mishap was not the fault of the defendant, there exists no obligation to compensate the plaintiff. This defence highlights the plaintiff’s shared responsibility for the harm, thereby either nullifying or reducing their entitlement to damages.

This common law principle is known as the principle of “Ex turpi causa non oritur actio” which is a Latin legal maxim that translates to “no action can arise from an illegal act”[5]. This doctrine underscores the principle that no legal action can stem from an illegal or morally reprehensible act. In essence, it precludes plaintiffs from seeking recourse when the harm they suffered results from their own wrongful conduct.

Ultimately, Plaintiff’s default underscores the principle of accountability, emphasizing that individuals or entities must acknowledge their own role in an incident before seeking restitution through legal action against another party.

PUNISHMENTS

Punishments resulting from plaintiff’s default can vary depending on the circumstances of the case. Here are several consequences that plaintiffs may encounter when found at fault:

  1.  Damages Reduction: In instances where the plaintiff bears partial responsibility, the damages claimable by the defendant may be diminished proportionally.
  2.  Dismissal of the Case: Failure by the plaintiff to comply with court requirements empowers the judge to dismiss the case entirely, depriving the plaintiff of the opportunity to present their case and seek compensation.
  3. Judgment in Favour of the Defendant: If the plaintiff defaults, the judge may opt to rule in favour of the defendant without hearing the plaintiff’s perspective, even in cases where the plaintiff initially presented a valid claim.

CASE LAWS

  1. Pitts vs Hunt[6]: The plaintiff and the rider had been drinking before the accident and the plaintiff was aware that the rider did not have a license and still the plaintiff encouraged the rider to drive fast under drunken conditions, which led to causing death of the rider and severe injuries to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the relatives of the rider seeking for damages. In this case, his plea was rejected as he was also at fault i.e. leading to plaintiff’s default.
  2. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company[7]: The plaintiff was standing on a railroad platform purchasing a ticket, when a train stopped, and two men ran forward to catch it. One of them nearly fell and two railroad employees attempted to help him which led to the explosion of the fireworks which was in the packet they were carrying. Due to the explosion some scales at the other end of the platform fell and hit the plaintiff. The judgement was that the defendant could not be held liable for an injury that could not be reasonably foreseen.
  3. Bird v. Holbrook[8]: In this case, the defendant fixed up spring guns in his garden without displaying any notice and the plaintiff who was a trespasser suffered injuries due to its automatic discharge. The court held that the defendant is held liable, and the plaintiff is to get compensation for the injuries suffered by him.

ACT OF GOD

“Act of God” refers to the occurrence of an extraordinary event that could not have been prevented by a reasonable person. Examples are earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, volcanic eruptions etc. ‘Vis Major,’ a Latin term meaning “superior force” or “Act of God,” is employed to characterize events beyond human control, even after all reasonable precautions have been taken.[9] It serves as a legal defence to absolve one or both parties from liability when damages occur due to events beyond their control.

For this defence to be applicable, certain essential criteria must be met. Firstly, there must be the occurrence of a natural force, and secondly, it must be demonstrated that no reasonable person could have guarded against it. This defence is crucial in cases where unforeseeable circumstances lead to damages, providing a framework for assigning responsibility in situations beyond human anticipation or prevention.

PUNISHMENTS

There are typically no punishments associated with the Act of God, as neither party is considered at fault. Instead, parties affected by such events may seek relief through various means, including government assistance and insurance claims. This allows affected parties to recover from any losses incurred due to circumstances beyond their control.

CASE LAWS

  1. Nichols v. Marsland[10]: In this legal precedent, the defendant undertook the creation of an artificial lake on his property by diverting water from natural streams. However, an unprecedented and exceptionally heavy rainfall, unparalleled in human memory, occurred, resulting in the catastrophic destruction of the lake and the complete obliteration of all four structures belonging to the plaintiff. The court, in its ruling, absolved the defendant of liability, deeming the incident an Act of God beyond human control. 
  2. Rylands v. Fletcher[11]: In this pivotal case, the defendant, the proprietor of a mill, engaged a contractor to construct a reservoir on his premises. During the construction process, the contractor inadvertently encountered disused mineshafts linking to the adjacent property owned by the plaintiff. Subsequently, the reservoir filled with water, seeping through the mineshafts and causing extensive damage to the plaintiff’s land and mine. This landmark case established the doctrine of strict liability, wherein the defendant bears responsibility if the non-natural use of their land results in harm to the plaintiff’s property. 
  3. Transatlantic Financing Corporation v. United States (1952):[12] In this significant legal dispute, the plaintiff, owner of a vessel transporting a cargo of coal, saw their ship sink due to a hurricane off the coast of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Pursuing legal recourse, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the United States, invoking the Admiralty Act and the Public Vessel Act, seeking compensation for the loss of the vessel. The court’s ruling determined the sinking of the ship to be an Act of God, specifically attributing it to the hurricane, thereby absolving the United States government of liability for the vessel’s demise.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this article offers a thorough examination of two pivotal defences within tort law: Plaintiff’s Default and Act of God. Through the analysis of these case laws, we have delved into these concepts to gain a deeper understanding. Plaintiff’s default underscores the principle of accountability, holding individuals responsible for their actions that result in harm. Conversely, the Act of God defence shields individuals from culpability for actions stemming from natural occurrences beyond human control, which could not have been prevented despite the exercise of reasonable precautions. This article serves as a valuable resource for enhancing comprehension of these defences, empowering individuals to navigate legal complexities with greater efficiency. By elucidating these principles, individuals are better equipped to navigate legal challenges and protect their rights.

REFERENCES

  1. https://blog.ipleaders.in/analysis-pigeon-hole-theory-under-law-torts/#:~:text=According%20to%20Salmond%2C%20%E2%80%9CTort%20is,%2C%20other%20merely%20equitable%20obligation.%E2%80%9D
  2. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1565/1/a1963-36.pdf
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defendant
  4. https://lawbhoomi.com/general-defences-in-tort/ 
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff 
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_God

[1] Pigeon hole theory https://blog.ipleaders.in/analysis-pigeon-hole-theory-under-law-torts/#:~:text=According%20to%20Salmond%2C%20%E2%80%9CTort%20is,%2C%20other%20merely%20equitable%20obligation.%E2%80%9D

[2] THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1565/1/a1963-36.pdf

[3] Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defendant

[4] Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff

[5] https://lawbhoomi.com/general-defences-in-tort/

[6] [1991] 1 QB 24

[7] 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928)

[8] [1828] 4 Bing. 628

[9] Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_God

[10] [1876] 2 Ex D 1

[11] LR 3 HL 330

[12] 363 F. 2d 312 (D.C. Cir. 1966)

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 of a personal nature.

PDF 📄
Exit mobile version