Site icon Legal Vidhiya

PLANTIFF’S DEFAULT AND ACT OF GOD

Admin
Advertisements
Spread the love

This article is written by Mahesh Chauhan of 3rd Semester of Lloyd Law College, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

ABSTRACT

This Research paper provides an insightful overview of tort law in India and its corresponding defences. It begins with the introduction about what the article holds then it talks about what a tort is and what is the law of torts in India. In addition to this, it talks about the defences, 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 more emphasis on two pivotal defences mainly Plaintiff’s Default and Act of God. In this research paper, the defences are explained in simple terms, making them easy to understand even to a person of non-legal background. The Research also talks about the real-life cases to show how these defences have been applied in courts. Finally, the Paper 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 i.e. Plaintiff’s Default and Act of God. Whereby Plaintiff default refers to the failure of Plaintiff to meet procedural or substantive legal obligation. Conversely, the Act of God denotes natural, unforeseen events that disrupt normal circumstances and can exempt defendant’s liability. Readers are encouraged to explore this Research paper for a deeper understanding of the two general defences in the tort law: Plaintiff’s Default and Act of God.

KEYWORDS

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

INTRODUCTION

The law of torts plays a significant role in our daily lives. It deals with civil wrongs and offers redress to people or companies injured by other people’s acts. Defences are a crucial component of torts law because they allow defendants to reduce or even completely erase their obligation for any injury that is committed. Two significant defences include under torts is first where the plaintiff 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.

The French language is where the word tort first appeared. It has the same meaning as the English word “wrong”. It comes from the Medieval Latin word “torquere,” which means “to twist,” which was later developed into the Medieval Latin term “tortum,” which meaning “wrong” or “injury.” It is a civil wrong because there has been a duty breach. An individual who violates another person’s rights is referred to as a tortfeasor, or offender. Torts occur when a person’s obligation to others is compromised.

According to the Salmond Torts is a civil wrong for which remedy is common law action for unliquidated damages and which is exclusively not the breach of contract or breach of trust.[1]

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

WHAT IS LAW OF TORT

According to John Salmond, tort is a civil wrong which has unliquidated damages (damages whose amount is not fixed) in the form of remedy and which is not exclusively the breach of contract or the breach of trust.

OBJECTIVES OF A TORT

  1. The primary goal of a tort is to ascertain the parties’ respective rights.
  2. To prevent the continuation or repetition of harm i.e. by giving orders of injunction.
  3. To protect certain rights of every individual recognized by law i.e. a person’s reputation.
  4. To provide one’s property to its rightful owner.

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A TORT

Three essential elements which constitute a tort are,

  1. A Wrongful act or omission, and
  2. Duty imposed by the law.
  3. The act done by a person must give rise to legal or actual damage,

and the act should be of such a nature that it gives rise to a legal remedy in the form of an action for damages.

WHAT IS A DUTY IMPOSED BY LAW?

Every person is required to uphold a standard of reasonable care that they may reasonably see to be harmful to others. This is known as a duty of care. Therefore, a legal obligation is one that may be enforced in Indian courts.

TORTS CAN BE SUB-DIVIDED INTO TWO PARTS

Intentional torts are the tort which is committed with full knowledge and knowing outcome of the act along with the mental intention to cause such a tort. Mala fide intention is a main ingredient to commit an Intentional Tort.

Intentional torts for instances are: Assault, Battery, False Imprisonment, trespass to land etc.

Unintentional torts are usually caused by accident or by defendant mistake to the plaintiff without any mala fide (bad faith) intention towards doing such an act. These are usually breach of duty of care which a reasonable human being would’ve considered under normal circumstances. The example of unintentional torts is Negligence (failure to take proper care over something).

The most common example of Negligence as a civil wrong is when a property owner neglects to take reasonable care of his floor and leaves water on it carelessly, it can lead to slip and fall cases, which are the most common example of negligence as a civil wrong. This can injure anyone who enters the owner’s property. In this case, the property owner had no intention of hurting the guests, but because of his negligence, this is what happened.

WHO IS CALLED A DEFENDANT

A defendant is the party or a person against whom a lawsuit has been filed, or we can it accused party. In civil cases, defendants are sued for damages i.e. compensation, while in criminal cases, they are accused of committing a crime[3]. It’s very important to notice that being a defendant does not mean the person is imply guilty or criminal. Instead, it shows that an individual or entity is facing allegations of wrongdoing. In addition, a person has right and opportunity to defend themselves in court.

WHO IS CALLED A PLAINTIFF

The plaintiff is the person or entity that files a lawsuit against another party. The plaintiff takes on the responsibility of filing a complaint and requesting remedy via the judicial system[4]. Anyone who feels that they have been harmed or that their legal rights have been violated is entitled to take the plaintiff role and submit a complaint against the alleged offender. Being a plaintiff, especially in civil disputes, gives you the chance to submit evidence and demand damages, but it does not guarantee a positive conclusion. Depending on the specifics of the case and the legal environment in which it is being handled, the plaintiff may have different duties and obligations.

WHAT IS A DEFENCE

Defence refers to a variety of tactics used to defend oneself from injury or danger. These tactics can include discussions, deeds, fortifications, legal manoeuvres, medicines, and more. In the legal domain, defence refers specifically to the tactic a defendant uses to dispute the allegations made by the plaintiff in a lawsuit.

GENERAL DEFENCES IN LAW OF TORTS

In tort law, general defences function as legal defences or excuses for the defendant with the goal of reducing or avoiding the penalty for the injury that was caused to the plaintiff. These defences prevent unreasonable liability for acts outside of the defendant’s control while also defending their legal rights and interests. There are situations where the defendant should be given mercy or acquitted even though their acts directly cause a tort to be committed. Nevertheless, how these defences are used differs according on the circumstances. It is vital to note that these defences are not absolute but are dependent 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 given voluntarily and knowingly, free from fraud, deception, or other forms of compulsion. For example, if a person voluntarily consents to take a driving test and then gets hurt while driving, they cannot legally sue the corporation because they gave their consent beforehand.
  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. To remove the object, another individual enters the property without authorization and commits trespassing in the hopes of avoiding more damage. One could raise the defence of necessity in such a situation.
  3. Act of God: This refers to any unforeseeable natural event that a reasonable person could not forestall. For Examples tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, and other natural calamities.
  4. Plaintiff the wrongdoer: According to this defence, the plaintiff’s injuries or harm was caused by their own activities. As a result, the plaintiff might not be entitled to receive any damages, especially if their acts had a major role in the harm that occurred. For example, a plaintiff’s capacity to sue may be affected if they drive on the wrong side of the road and get into an accident because of their own carelessness.
  5. Statutory authority: When an action is sanctioned by legislation or executed with the authorization of the legislature, the defendant may be exempt from liability.
  6. Inevitable accident: This defence contends that an unexpected event occurred which a reasonable person could not have prevented even with the utmost precautions. For example, it would be considered an inevitable accident if someone offers you a ride and their car’s wheel suddenly collapse, injuring you.

We will now turn our attention back to our topic and examine the ideas of the Plaintiff’s Default and Act of God in more detail.

PLAINTIFF’S DEFAULT

A situation known as a plaintiff’s default occurs when the plaintiff bears responsibility for their own suffering or injury and intends to sue the defendant for damages. This is the case where the plaintiff is personally liable for the incident for which they are seeking legal action. Additionally, a plaintiff’s default happens when they fail to adhere the court’s orders after filing a case against someone else.

Plaintiff’s default, which serves as the defendant’s primary defence strategy, claims that the plaintiff’s conduct caused the unfortunate incident and absolve the defendant from responsibility. It claims that there is no duty to reimburse the plaintiff because the defendant was not at fault for the accident. By highlighting the plaintiff’s shared liability for the injury, this defence either reduces or eliminates the plaintiff’s right to damages.

The Latin legal maxim “Ex turpi causa non orituractio” (meaning “no action can arise from an illegal act”) is the name given to this common law principle[5]. The doctrine emphasizes the idea that an illegal or immoral act cannot give rise to a lawsuit. Essentially, it precludes plaintiffs from pursuing legal action when their own wrongdoing caused the harm that they experienced.

PUNISHMENTS

Depending on the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff’s default may result in different punishments. Following the discovery of fault, plaintiffs may experience the following possible outcomes:

  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 nonetheless the plaintiff urged the rider to drive fast under inebriated conditions, which led to causing death of the rider and severe injuries to the plaintiff. In an attempt to recover damages, the plaintiff sued the rider’s family members. His plea was denied in this instance because he contributed to the plaintiff’s default by being at fault as well.
  2. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company[7]: A train stopped while the plaintiff was buying a ticket on a railroad platform, and two men hurried forward to board it. When two railroad workers tried to assist one of them after he almost collapsed, the fireworks in the packet they were carrying exploded. A few scales at the opposite end of the platform collapsed as a result of the explosion, striking the plaintiff. The ruling stated that an injury that was not reasonably foreseeable could not subject the defendant to liability.
  3. Bird v. Holbrook[8]: The plaintiff, a trespasser, was hurt by the automatic discharge of the spring weapons that the defendant had installed in his garden without providing any warning. The plaintiff is entitled to compensation for his damage, as determined by the court, and the defendant is held accountable.

ACT OF GOD

“Act of God” refers to the occurrence of an extraordinary event that could not have been prevented by a reasonable person. Volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes are a few examples. The Latin phrase “Vis Major,” which translates to “superior force” or “Act of God,” is used to describe uncontrollable catastrophes that nevertheless occur even in the face of all reasonable measures.[9] It acts as a legal defence to release one or both parties from responsibility when damages result from uncontrollable circumstances.

A few crucial requirements must be fulfilled in order for this defence to be effective. 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 unpredictable circumstances lead to harm, providing a framework for allocating responsibility in situations beyond human prediction or prevention.

PUNISHMENTS

Since neither party is thought to be at fault, there are usually no punishments connected to the Act of God. Parties impacted by such incidents, however, may pursue compensation via a variety of channels, such as insurance claims and government support. This enables those who are impacted to get compensation for any losses they may have suffered as a result of uncontrollable events.

CASE LAWS

  1. Nichols v. Marsland[10]: In this judicial case, the defendant diverted water from natural streams to create an artificial lake on his property. But then there was an unheard-of, record-breaking amount of rainfall—the most intense in human history, which led to the lake’s catastrophic collapse and the total destruction of the plaintiff’s four structures. In its decision, the court released the defendant from liability, declaring the incident to be an uncontrollable Act of God.
  2. Rylands v. Fletcher[11]: The defendant in this crucial case, a mill owner, hired a contractor to build a reservoir on his property. The contractor unintentionally came across abandoned mineshafts connecting to the plaintiff’s neighboring land while working on the project. Subsequently, the reservoir filled with water, seeping into the mineshafts and causing substantial damage to the plaintiff’s land and mine. The legal precedent set by this landmark case is known as strict liability, according to which the defendant is liable for any damage caused to the plaintiff’s property by the non-natural use of their land.
  3. Transatlantic Financing Corporation v. United States (1952)[12]: In this case, The plaintiff, witnessed their ship sink in a hurricane off the coast of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, while carrying a coal cargo. In an attempt to take legal action, the plaintiff sued the US, citing the Public Vessel Act and the Admiralty Act, and requested damages for the lost vessel. The court’s decision exempted the US government of responsibility for the ship’s sinking by declaring it to be an Act of God and directly linking it to the hurricane.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this article provides a comprehensive analysis of two essential defences within tort law: Act of God and Plaintiff’s Default. We have explored each of these concepts in greater detail through the examination of several case laws. The plaintiff’s default highlights the accountability principle, which holds people accountable for their actions that cause injury. On the other hand, the defense of the Act of God exempts people from liability for acts resulting from uncontrollable natural events that could not have been avoided even with the implementation of appropriate safety measures.

This paper is a valuable instrument for improving understanding of various defences, enabling people to handle legal difficulties more effectively. By clarifying these ideas, people can more easily handle legal issues and safeguard their rights.

REFERENCES

  1. Legal Lock Admin, What is Tort Law? | Definition, Types & Examples, https://thelegallock.com/what-is-tort-and-what-are-its-elements/,  (last visited Sep 27, 2024)
  2. Law of Torts Notes (Part 1),https://blog.ipleaders.in/law-of-torts-compilation-part-1/, (last visited Sep 28, 2024)
  3. Torts, https://www.britannica.com/topic/tort, (last visited Sep 28, 2024)
  4. General Defences in Tort, https://lawbhoomi.com/general-defences-in-tort/, (last visited Sep 29, 2024)
  5. Act of god as a defence under Tort Law, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3171-act-of-god-as-a-defence-under-tort-law.html, (last visited Sep 30, 2024)
  6. Act of god and Inevitable Accident, https://blog.ipleaders.in/act-of-god-and-inevitable-accident/, (last visited Oct 01, 2024)

[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] 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] 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 personal.

PDF 📄
Exit mobile version