Definitions In Defenses By Ramalinga Nadar V. Narayan Reddiar
DEFENCES IN TORTS
The word “defence” bears several meanings in the tort context and a great deal of confusion has been spawned of a general failure by courts and commentators to make their intended meaning clear. Although conventionally the word defence is used to refer to those arguments which when used persuades the court to conclude that the defendant in a case is not guilty. So, they basically include “absent element defences” which are denials of the components of the tort that the plaintiff has allegedly committed. Now this can be done in two ways. First the defendant can deny that the tort was committed or second, the defendant can deny on the grounds of legal sufficiency in the allegations of the plaintiff, even if a tort has been committed. …show more content…
There must be working of natural forces.
In Ramalinga Nadar v. Narayan Reddiar , It has been held that the criminal activities of the unruly mob, which robbed the goods transported in the defendant’s lorry cannot be considered as an Act of God and the defendant is liable for these goods as a common carrier
It was observed, “Accidents may happen by reason of the play of natural forces or by intervention of human agency or by both. It may be that in either of these cases, accidents may be inevitable. But it is only those acts which can be traced to natural forces and which have nothing to do with the intervention of human agency that could be said to be Acts of God.”
2. Occurrence must be extraordinary
The occurrence must be extraordinary and beyond any possible form of prediction. In Kallulal v.Hemchand , the wall of a building collapsed on a day when there was a rainfall of 2.66 inches. That resulted in the death of the respondent’s two children. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that that the defendant could not take the defence of Act of God in this case as that much of rainfall in the rainy season was ordinary and something which should have been ancticipated and guarded against. The defendant was therefore held
The word “defence” bears several meanings in the tort context and a great deal of confusion has been spawned of a general failure by courts and commentators to make their intended meaning clear. Although conventionally the word defence is used to refer to those arguments which when used persuades the court to conclude that the defendant in a case is not guilty. So, they basically include “absent element defences” which are denials of the components of the tort that the plaintiff has allegedly committed. Now this can be done in two ways. First the defendant can deny that the tort was committed or second, the defendant can deny on the grounds of legal sufficiency in the allegations of the plaintiff, even if a tort has been committed. …show more content…
There must be working of natural forces.
In Ramalinga Nadar v. Narayan Reddiar , It has been held that the criminal activities of the unruly mob, which robbed the goods transported in the defendant’s lorry cannot be considered as an Act of God and the defendant is liable for these goods as a common carrier
It was observed, “Accidents may happen by reason of the play of natural forces or by intervention of human agency or by both. It may be that in either of these cases, accidents may be inevitable. But it is only those acts which can be traced to natural forces and which have nothing to do with the intervention of human agency that could be said to be Acts of God.”
2. Occurrence must be extraordinary
The occurrence must be extraordinary and beyond any possible form of prediction. In Kallulal v.Hemchand , the wall of a building collapsed on a day when there was a rainfall of 2.66 inches. That resulted in the death of the respondent’s two children. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that that the defendant could not take the defence of Act of God in this case as that much of rainfall in the rainy season was ordinary and something which should have been ancticipated and guarded against. The defendant was therefore held