Law and You > Law of Tort > Defence of Illegality: Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio
The word “Tort” is of a French origin which has been further derived from the Latin word “Tortum” meaning “to twist” and implies conduct which is tortious4or twisted. It is a species of civil injury or wrong. A tort is a wrongful act or an infringement of a right (other than under contract) leading to legal liability and for which civil courts award compensation. Section 2 of Limitation Act 163 defines it as ‘a civil wrong which is not exclusively the breach of contract or breach of trust’. For example, to stop or obstruct a person to perform his legal right is a tort. (Case Ashby v. White), In this article, we shall discuss the concept of tort and law of tort. In tort law, a defence is a legal justification or excuse that a defendant may raise to avoid liability for committing a tort (a wrongful act). These defences either negate the elements of the tort or justify the defendant’s actions under the circumstances. In this article, let us discuss defence of inevitable accident.
Different Defences in Tort Law:
In tort law, several defences are available to a defendant who is being sued for a tort. These defences can either completely absolve liability or reduce the amount of damages. Here’s a list of common defences in tort:
- Consent (Volenti Non Fit Injuria): If the plaintiff consented to the act that caused the harm, the defendant may not be liable. Consent can be express or implied.
- Self-Defence: A defendant can avoid liability by proving that the tortious act was necessary to protect themselves from harm. The force used must be reasonable and proportionate to the threat.
- Defence of Others: Similar to self-defence, a defendant may claim they acted to protect someone else from harm. Again, the force used must be reasonable.
- Defence of Property: A person is allowed to use reasonable force to protect their property. However, the force must be proportional and not excessive.
- Necessity: This defence applies when a tortious act was done to prevent greater harm to the defendant, others, or property. For example, trespassing to escape an imminent danger may be excused under necessity.
- Statutory Authority: If the defendant was acting under statutory authority (i.e., following the law or legal procedures), they may be excused from liability, even if harm resulted.
- Contributory Negligence: If the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to their injury, they may be barred from recovering damages (in jurisdictions that still recognize contributory negligence as a complete defence).
- Comparative Negligence: Similar to contributory negligence, but in this case, damages are apportioned based on the relative fault of the plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff’s recovery may be reduced but not entirely barred.
- Act of God (Force Majeure): A defendant may avoid liability if the harm was caused by an extraordinary natural event (such as a flood, earthquake, or storm) that was unforeseeable and unavoidable.
- Inevitable Accident: This defence asserts that the incident causing harm was unavoidable, even with reasonable care, and therefore, the defendant should not be held liable.
- Mistake: A defendant may argue that the tortious act was the result of a mistake, but this defence is generally weak unless the mistake was reasonable and unavoidable.
- Private Defence: A person may defend themselves or their property against the wrongful acts of others, provided the defence is proportionate to the threat.
- Duress: A defendant may claim they were forced to commit a tort due to the threat of harm, making their actions involuntary.
- Illegality (Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio): If the plaintiff was involved in illegal activity at the time of the tort, the defendant might avoid liability on the basis that a claim cannot arise from the plaintiff’s wrongful conduct.
- Limitation Period (Statute of Limitations): A claim in tort must be brought within a specified time period. If the plaintiff files the claim too late, the defendant can raise the limitation period as a defence.
Each of these defences has its own criteria and conditions, and their applicability depends on the jurisdiction and the specific circumstances of the case.
Inevitable Accident:
Inevitable accident is a defence in tort law that applies when an accident occurs without negligence or wrongdoing by the defendant. This defence asserts that the injury or damage was caused by an event that could not have been prevented by any reasonable care or foresight, and thus, the defendant should not be held liable. The key idea is that the accident was truly unavoidable and occurred despite the defendant taking all necessary precautions.
For example, suppose a driver is traveling down a road when a large tree unexpectedly falls due to a sudden, severe storm, crushing their car. If the driver had no prior knowledge of the tree’s weakness and was driving in a manner that complied with traffic laws, they may invoke the inevitable accident defence if the tree falls on another vehicle or property without any negligence involved.
Key Principles of the Inevitable Accident Defence:
- Unforeseeability: The event causing the harm must be unforeseen and not predictable. It must be something that could not have been anticipated by a reasonable person in the defendant’s position.
- Absence of Negligence: The defendant must demonstrate that they acted with due care and that the accident occurred despite their best efforts to prevent it. This means there must be no negligence on the part of the defendant; they must have adhered to the standard of care expected in the circumstances.
- No Human Agency: The cause of the accident must not be due to human agency or conduct. If the accident was influenced by any human action (even if not negligent), the defence may fail.
Key Requirements for the Inevitable Accident Defence:
- Proof of Unavoidability: The defendant must prove that the accident was unavoidable, meaning that no reasonable precautions could have prevented it. This often requires evidence showing that the event was extraordinary or beyond the control of any party involved.
- No Contributory Factors: The defence will be applicable only if the accident is solely attributable to circumstances beyond human control. If any factor within the defendant’s control contributed to the accident, the defence may not succeed.
- Reasonable Care: The defendant must show that they took reasonable precautions and acted responsibly under the circumstances. If it can be shown that the defendant failed to take necessary precautions, they may still be held liable despite claiming inevitable accident.
Application of the Defence:
- Natural Disasters: The inevitable accident defence is often applied in cases involving natural disasters, such as earthquakes, floods, or storms, where damage occurs that could not have been predicted or prevented.
- Mechanical Failures: If a mechanical failure occurs in a vehicle or machine that leads to an accident, and the owner had maintained it properly, they may invoke the inevitable accident defence if the failure was sudden and unforeseen.
- Unforeseen Events: situation where an accident occurs due to an event that is entirely beyond human control and could not have been reasonably anticipated can be considered under the inevitable accident defence.
Limits to the Inevitable Accident Defence:
- Reasonable Precautions: The defence will not succeed if the defendant failed to take reasonable precautions that could have prevented the accident. Courts will examine whether adequate measures were taken to avoid foreseeable risks.
- Contributory Factors: If any actions by the defendant contributed to the accident, the defence may be unavailable. For instance, if a driver was speeding and an unavoidable obstacle appeared, the defence may not apply if the driver’s speed contributed to the incident.
- Legal and Regulatory Compliance: If the defendant’s actions, although seemingly unintentional, violate legal or regulatory requirements, the defence may not be applicable. Compliance with laws and regulations can impact the assessment of reasonable care.
Case Laws:
In Parker v. British Airways Board, [1982] Q.B. 1004 case, where a passenger left their luggage at the airport. When the airline attempted to move the luggage, it was damaged in an unexpected incident that could not have been anticipated or prevented. The court held that the airline was not liable because the damage was caused by an inevitable accident.
The inevitable accident defence is a significant aspect of tort law that allows defendants to avoid liability for injuries or damages caused by events that are genuinely unforeseen and uncontrollable. To successfully invoke this defence, the defendant must demonstrate that the accident was unavoidable, that they exercised due care, and that no contributing factors were present. Courts will closely evaluate the circumstances surrounding the incident to determine the applicability of the defence, ensuring that it is not misused to evade liability for negligent behaviour.
Conclusion:
The defence of inevitable accident in tort law serves to absolve defendants from liability when an injury results from an unforeseen event that could not have been anticipated or avoided, despite reasonable care. This doctrine acknowledges that accidents can occur without negligence on the part of any party involved, emphasizing that liability should not be imposed for incidents that are genuinely unavoidable.
Inevitable accidents highlight the distinction between negligent conduct and mere misfortune, reinforcing the principle that not all accidents warrant compensation. This defense is particularly relevant in cases involving natural phenomena or sudden medical emergencies, where no amount of precaution could have prevented the harm.
However, its application requires careful judicial consideration. Courts must assess whether the circumstances truly constituted an inevitable accident or if there were actions that could have mitigated the risk. This scrutiny ensures that the defense is not misused to evade accountability.
Ultimately, the inevitable accident defence reflects a balanced approach within tort law, recognizing the reality of unforeseen events while maintaining a standard of responsibility. It serves to protect defendants from unjust liability while reinforcing the need for careful and responsible conduct in activities that could foreseeably lead to harm.