Discharge of Torts
Discharge of Torts
Definition:
Discharge of torts refers to circumstances or situations under which the liability of a person for committing a tort is extinguished or avoided, either partially or fully. In other words, even if a tort is committed, the defendant may be relieved from liability under certain defenses or circumstances recognized by law.
Modes of Discharge of Torts
Torts can be discharged primarily in the following ways:
1. By Consent (Volenti Non Fit Injuria)
Principle:
No one can claim a tort if they have voluntarily consented to the act which would otherwise be tortious.
Legal Maxim: Volenti non fit injuria – “To a willing person, no injury is done.”
Essentials:
Consent must be free and voluntary.
The person must have knowledge of the risk involved.
The act should not go beyond the scope of consent.
Case Law:
Morris v Murray (1991) – A man flew with a drunk pilot and crashed; claim failed because he voluntarily assumed the risk.
Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing Club (1933) – Spectators attending a motor race consented to ordinary risks of racing.
2. By Necessity
Principle:
Tort liability may be discharged if the act was done out of necessity to prevent greater harm.
Example: Saving life, property, or preventing public harm.
Case Law:
Cooper v Scott (1866) – A person damaged another’s property to prevent a fire from spreading; liability was excused due to necessity.
Southwark London Borough Council v Williams (1971) – Occupation of property in an emergency may be excused.
3. By Statutory Authority
Principle:
If a person acts in accordance with lawful statutory authority, they are discharged from tort liability even if harm results.
Case Law:
A-G v PYA Quarries Ltd (1957) – Quarry operations causing noise were lawful under statutory authorization; no liability.
4. By Act of God (Natural Calamity)
Principle:
Tort liability is excused when damage is caused by natural events beyond human control, provided there is no negligence.
Essentials:
Must be extraordinary natural event (flood, earthquake).
No human intervention contributed to damage.
Case Law:
Nichols v Marsland (1876) – Flood caused by heavy rain and burst lakes excused liability; it was an “Act of God.”
5. By Inevitable Accident
Principle:
If harm occurs due to an unforeseeable accident, without negligence or intent, tort liability may be discharged.
Case Law:
Smith v Baker (1891) – Accident in the course of lawful employment; liability was limited as it was unavoidable and not due to negligence.
6. By Private Defense (Self-Defense)
Principle:
Acts done in self-defense or defense of property discharge liability.
Essentials:
The threat must be imminent.
Force used must be reasonable and proportionate.
Case Law:
Cockcroft v Smith (1701) – Reasonable force in self-defense is a valid defense.
Bird v Holbrook (1828) – Traps set to protect property must not cause excessive harm; defense valid only if reasonable.
7. By Contributory Negligence
Principle:
If the plaintiff contributed to the harm negligently, the tort liability may be reduced or discharged proportionately.
Case Law:
Butterfield v Forrester (1809) – Plaintiff riding too fast contributed to the accident; defendant’s liability reduced.
Froom v Butcher (1976) – Not wearing a seatbelt reduced compensation; contributory negligence applied.
8. By Release or Waiver
Principle:
Tort liability can be discharged if the plaintiff expressly or impliedly waives the right to sue.
Case Law:
Patterson v Reynolds (1899) – Waiver signed by plaintiff releasing liability from injury; discharge accepted.
Summary Table of Discharge of Torts
| Mode of Discharge | Principle | Key Case Law |
|---|---|---|
| Consent | Volenti non fit injuria | Morris v Murray (1991) |
| Necessity | Preventing greater harm | Cooper v Scott (1866) |
| Statutory Authority | Acts under law | A-G v PYA Quarries Ltd (1957) |
| Act of God | Natural unavoidable events | Nichols v Marsland (1876) |
| Inevitable Accident | Unforeseeable accident | Smith v Baker (1891) |
| Self-Defense | Protect self/property | Cockcroft v Smith (1701) |
| Contributory Negligence | Plaintiff’s own negligence | Butterfield v Forrester (1809) |
| Release / Waiver | Plaintiff waives claim | Patterson v Reynolds (1899) |
Conclusion:
Discharge of torts ensures fairness by excusing liability where the defendant acted lawfully, reasonably, or without fault.
It balances the rights of the plaintiff with the circumstances of the defendant.
RELATED Blog
0 comments