Mistake in Torts

One of the general defences available under the Law of Torts is a mistake. The general defences provided under the law of Torts are described in the legal studies. In tort law, the legal principles referred to as general defences enable a defendant to escape punishment for committing a tortious act. These defences are intended to protect the defendant's rights and interests. The plaintiff bears the burden of proof, and should the defendant successfully prove a defence, they will not be held liable for any losses or harms incurred by the plaintiff.

CLAT 2025: 10 Free Mock Tests | Legal Maxims | Landmark Judgements | PYQs

CUET BA LLB 2025:  Legal Studies ebook | 5 Free Mock Tests

MH CET LAW 2025: 10 Free Mock Tests | Legal Reasoning Practice Questions

Monthly Legal Current Affairs:  August’24 | July’24 | June’24

This Story also Contains

1. The objective of General Defence in Tort
2. Various General Defences in Tort
3. Mistake Under The Law of Tort
4. Types of Mistakes Under The Law of Tort
5. Case Laws on Mistakes Under The Law of Torts
6. Conclusion

The objective of General Defence in Tort

A reasonable and equitable balance between the plaintiff's and defendant's legal rights is the primary objective of general defenses in tort law. Many defences are necessary to safeguard the defendant's legal rights and shield them from being held liable for uncontrollable events.

Furthermore, these defences offer a framework for finding out if the defendant's activities were appropriate in the specific situation.

Various General Defences in Tort

Volenti non-fit Injuria

According to the Volenti non-fit injuria defence, the plaintiff has voluntarily accepted the risk of harm or injury. The defendant can argue that any harm brought about by the action is not compensable as the plaintiff willingly took on the risk involved. The essentials of this general defence are-

• The danger of damage or injury has to have been freely and willingly accepted by the plaintiff.

• The type and degree of the danger must have been known to the plaintiff.

• The danger must have been accepted by the plaintiff.

Plaintiff the Wrongdoer

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio is a dictum that states that no activity can result from an immoral cause. The plaintiff's defence of being the wrongdoer implies that the plaintiff shared some of the blame for the damage or injury sustained. The defendant may contend that the plaintiff should not be held exclusively responsible for the damages because their acts contributed to the injury that was experienced.

Inevitable Accident

The defence of an inevitable accident states that there was no way to have avoided the damage or injuries. The defendant can argue that since the harm or injury was brought on by unanticipated events, they shouldn't be held responsible. This general defence's fundamental components are:

• The damage or injury sustained was not anticipated.

• The injury or harm sustained resulted from unforeseen events.

Act of God or Vis Major

The defenses of the Act of God or Vis Major are a fairly major variation of unavoidable accidents, but the main distinction between the two is the important role that natural forces play in the Act of God. For instance, floods, hurricanes, etc. The essentials under this general defences are-

• Natural events that were beyond human control resulted in harm or injury.

• The defendant was unable to prevent the harm or injury.

Private Defence

The defendant must have acted in self-defence or defence of another person or piece of property to raise the defence of private defence. The defendant may contend that what they did was required to keep others or oneself safe from damage or injury. The essentials under this general defences are-

• The defendant has to have acted to protect themselves or other people's property.

• The defendant's actions are needed to prevent harm or damage.

Statutory Authority

To effectively defend their statutory authority, the defendant must demonstrate that their acts were permitted by law. The defendant may argue that they shouldn't be held responsible for any losses or harm that occurred because their actions were lawful. The essentials under this general defences are-

• The defendant was operating following a statute.

• The law gave the defendant permission to do what she did.

Mistake Under The Law of Tort

The defence of error states that the accused did not intend to hurt or injure someone and that they made an honest mistake. The defendant may contend that they lacked the necessary facts or knowledge to do otherwise. The essential ingredients of mistake are-

• The accused committed a sincere error.

• The error was committed with sincerity.

• It was not a deliberate error.

Types of Mistakes Under The Law of Tort

Mistake of Fact

When someone commits an act but misunderstands a fact that disproves a component of the crime, that is a mistake of fact. For several offences, an error of fact can serve as a defence. If the criminal defendant can demonstrate that he committed the conduct as a result of a factual error or misinterpretation, this will disprove a component of the crime.

A factual inaccuracy could offer an exemption that decreases or waives the individual's responsibility. Even when someone intentionally makes mistakes, they still bear responsibility for them. In a criminal prosecution, a defendant may argue that they did not intend to commit the offence. the illegal action that resulted from a misreading or misapprehension of the demands or circumstances. A factual error is the sole situation in which this type of exemption is allowed; a legal error is not considered a defence.

Mistakes in fact or law typically do not provide a defence against a tort claim. One cannot rationalize their actions when they willfully violate the rights of another. In the same way, nobody breaks into someone's house or speaks poorly about them.

Mistakes of fact may be used as a defence because men's rea is one of the key components. The factual error must be sincere and rational, or genuine in origin. A defendant cannot thereafter assert that, at the time of the incident, they were unaware of the facts and were acting in error.

In the case of, Chirangi v. The State of MP

In this case, A widower carrying an axe ventured into the forest with his child to gather "siadi" leaves. After a while, his nephew observed the accused sleeping beneath the tree, and the youngster vanished. Later on, the child was found dead. Evidence was presented to show that the accused killed his son accidentally by mistaking him for the tiger while in a mental state when he believed a tiger was going to attack him. Due to an error of fact, the court decided that he was not culpable. He did not want to kill his son.

Mistake of Law

When someone commits a tort and claims ignorance of the law as a defence, that is taken into consideration and termed as mistake of law. The court believes that everyone is aware of the nation's laws, which is why a legal error is not regarded as a defence under either the IPC or tort law.

In the case of, Mohammad Ali v. Sri Ram Swarup

In this instance, Muhammad Ali was being held by Chief Constable Ram Swarup. Mohammad sued Swarup, claiming that the latter had illegally imprisoned him. It was clear that Swarup had wrongfully arrested and held him without giving any explanation. It was decided in the aforementioned case that ignorance of the law is unacceptable, even if it is displayed in good faith.

Implications of Mistake of Law Under The Law of Tort

Negligence Cases

In situations involving negligence, the standard is what a reasonable person would do. In some circumstances, a legal error could be important if it raises questions about whether the defendant's behaviour met this standard. However, in most cases, the defendant's failure to know the law does not release them from their need to use reasonable caution.

Not a Defense

Legal errors typically cannot be used as a defence in tort cases. This concept is based on the maxim "ignorantia juris non excusat," which means "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Therefore, even if someone behaved under the erroneous notion that what they were doing was acceptable, they may still be held liable.

Intentional Torts

The defendant intends to perform the act rather than their comprehension of the law that counts in intentional tort cases. Whether or not someone thought their purposefully tortious behaviour was lawful, they are nonetheless accountable if they do such a thing.

Case Laws on Mistakes Under The Law of Torts

In the case of, Dhaki Singh v. State

In this case, The accused believes he will eventually catch the thief, but he shoots an innocent person because he thought the man was a thief. After determining that he was unable to make an arrest, the cop opened fire on him. Since his acts were not justified, he is unable to use the error of fact as a defense in this instance.

In the case of, State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa

In this instance, the Honorable High Court found that the defendant was protected under section 79 of the IPC since it was reasonable to believe that the respondent believed he was attacking spirits and attacked the women in good faith. The court additionally ruled that the respondent could not be granted protection under section 79 of the IPC simply because the event could have been avoided if he had exercised greater caution and attention. The court upheld the Learned Sessions Judge's decision to maintain the acquittal decree and deny the appeal.

Conclusion

This article describes the Mistakes in Tort as a general defence. The general defences in Torts are given in the Law of Torts to save a person from liabilities. According to the general defences in the Law of Torts, there are certain exceptions under which a person will not be liable for his actions. Exceptions such as volenti non-fit injuria, plaintiff the wrongdoer, and Act of God. private defence and Statutory Authority. As given under the Law of Torts Mistakes as a general defence under the law of torts means when a person commits any actions which was not intentionally committed or was un-deliberate will not be held liable.