Law and You > Law of Tort > Defence of Mistake in Tort Law

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 mistake in tort law..

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.

Mistake

Mistake as a defence in tort law refers to a situation where a defendant argues that their actions, which caused harm or injury, were based on a genuine misunderstanding of the facts or law. This defence can be relevant in various tort cases, including negligence, trespass, and defamation, among others. However, the success of this defence largely depends on the nature of the mistake and the specific circumstances surrounding the case.

For example, suppose a builder mistakenly believes that they have the permission of the property owner to start construction work on a piece of land. If they begin work and it turns out that they did not have the legal right to do so, they might argue that their actions were based on a genuine mistake regarding ownership and permission.

Key Principles of Mistake as a Defence:

• Types of Mistake: There are two types of mistakes:

• Factual Mistake: This occurs when a party is misinformed about a factual circumstance relevant to the case. For example, a person may mistakenly believe that they have the legal right to enter someone else’s property due to an error in understanding ownership.
• Legal Mistake: This happens when a party misunderstands the law governing their actions. For instance, a defendant might claim they were unaware that their actions constituted a tort.
• Genuineness of the Mistake: The mistake must be genuine and not a result of negligence or carelessness. If the defendant could have reasonably avoided the mistake through due diligence, this defence is less likely to succeed.
• Impact on Liability: successful plea of mistake can absolve a defendant from liability if it can be shown that the mistake directly led to the action causing the tort and that no reasonable person in the same position would have acted differently.

Key Requirements for the Mistake Defence:

• Relevance to the Tort: The mistake must be directly relevant to the tort claim. It should have contributed to the action that resulted in harm or injury.
• Proof of Mistake: The defendant must provide evidence that the mistake occurred and that it was reasonable under the circumstances.
• Absence of Negligence: If the mistake arises from the defendant’s negligence or failure to exercise reasonable care, the defence may not be applicable. Courts will look at whether the defendant acted reasonably in relation to the circumstances.

Application of the Defence:

• Negligence Cases: In negligence claims, a defendant may argue that they were operating under a mistaken belief about the facts, which led to the harm caused. However, if the mistake arises from negligence, the defence may not hold.
• Trespass: A defendant may claim a mistake regarding the right to enter a property. If they can show that their belief was reasonable and genuine, they might avoid liability for trespass.
• Defamation: In defamation cases, a defendant may argue that they mistakenly believed the information they published was true. However, if the mistake arises from a failure to investigate the truth of the statement, this defence may not succeed.

Limits to the Mistake Defence:

• Reasonableness of the Mistake: The defence will likely fail if the mistake was unreasonable or if the defendant did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the truth.
• Negligence: If the mistake is a result of negligence, the defence may not be applicable. Courts will look at whether the defendant acted with the appropriate standard of care expected in the circumstances.
• Legal Mistakes: Mistakes regarding the law itself are generally not accepted as a defence. Ignorance of the law is not usually a valid excuse for committing a tort.

Case Laws:

Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd, [2001] 2 AC 127 case involved a claim for defamation where the defendant published an article based on mistaken information. The court ruled that while the defendant’s belief in the truth of the statements was relevant, the defence of mistake could not absolve liability if the defendant had acted carelessly or recklessly in verifying the information.

The mistake defence in tort law allows defendants to argue that their actions, which caused harm, were based on a genuine misunderstanding of the facts or the law. For this defence to succeed, the mistake must be relevant to the tort, genuine, and free from negligence. Courts will carefully assess the reasonableness of the mistake and the circumstances surrounding the case to determine if the defence is applicable. While it can provide a viable path to absolution from liability in certain situations, it is limited by factors such as the reasonableness of the defendant’s belief and their diligence in verifying the facts.

Conclusion:

The defence of mistake in tort law offers a nuanced approach to liability, allowing defendants to argue that their actions should not result in liability due to a genuine misunderstanding or misapprehension of facts. This defence acknowledges that human error is an inherent aspect of life, and not all mistakes equate to negligence or wrongdoing.

For a mistake to serve as a valid defence, it typically must be proven that the misunderstanding was reasonable under the circumstances and that it directly led to the alleged harm. This is particularly relevant in cases involving misinterpretation of legal obligations or facts surrounding a situation.

However, the application of this defence is limited. Courts often require a high standard of reasonableness and may consider whether the defendant took appropriate steps to verify their understanding. If a mistake stems from carelessness or a failure to exercise due diligence, the defence may not succeed.

Ultimately, while the mistake defense serves to protect individuals from unjust liability for genuine errors, its effectiveness relies on a careful examination of the facts and the context surrounding the incident. This balance ensures accountability while recognizing the complexities of human decision-making in tort law.

For More Articles on the Law of Tort Click Here

For More Articles on Different Acts, Click Here