Necessity as a Defence in Tort

A person may utilise a variety of "excuses" or defences known as general defences in tort law to avoid being held liable. If his acts meet certain circumstances, he can convince the court that he is innocent in any situation. When the plaintiff files a lawsuit against the defendant for a certain tort, proving the existence of all required elements for that tort, the defendant will be held liable for the same. To escape responsibility in this case, the defendant may, however, raise any of his defences against the tort he has committed. Certain defences can be used against specific types of torts, whereas others can be used against any kind of tort.

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. Meaning of Necessity
2. Doctrine of Necessity in Torts
3. Types of Necessity
4. Importance of Necessity
5. Application of the Necessity as a Defence
6. Limitation to the Defence of Necessity
7. Case Laws on Necessity as a Defence
8. Conclusion

Meaning of Necessity

Section 81 of the Indian Penal Code defines necessity as a defence as follows. Act with the potential to harm, but with good intentions and to stop more harm. Nothing that is done in good faith to prevent or avert further injury to people or property, even if it is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm and without any criminal intention, is considered an offence.

This idea is typically put forth as a defence against all forms of trespassing, and it must serve the public interest or the greater welfare of the community. Thus, it is not only necessary but also necessary for the public. Given the facts of the case, there have been a few exceptions, but anything done by the defendant to further their interests would not be appropriate to prove the previously stated point. When using a reasonable amount of force against an innocent person or item of property to avert an imminent threat to the "public interest," a person or defendant may use the defence of necessity.

Doctrine of Necessity in Torts

The definition and application of the necessity doctrine in tort law are identical to those in criminal law. The theory is generally cited by the defendant in defence against deliberate torts like conversion and trespassing to land or chattels under the torts law. The main difference in its application is this. The defence of necessity under common law gives the government or a private party the authority to seize or use the property of another. In other words, someone is allowed to trespass onto someone else's property if doing so will avert substantial injury to themselves, their property, or their possessions, or to another person, their property, or their belongings.

The Latin common law dictum "necessitas inducit privilegium quod jura privata" serves as the foundation for this. This indicates that "a private right causes necessity to induce a privilege." When there is a clear and reasonable danger of harm to a person or society as a whole, a court will give a trespasser this privilege over damage to their property.

This defence differs from the privilege of "self-defence" in those persons who are injured by someone using the need privilege are typically innocent of any wrongdoing, in contrast to those who are attempting to defend themselves.

Types of Necessity

Public Necessity

A public necessity is when private citizens or public authorities take action to prevent a public disaster. The act involves stealing or causing damage to someone else's property. Public necessity is frequently demonstrated by the demolition of private property to protect the public, halt the spread of disease, or put out a fire. There is a public need wherever police trespass onto property. To obtain access to an emergency site or to capture a criminal suspect on private property. Public necessity is based on the legal presumption that the interests of the public are more important than those of individuals and that the latter must yield in cases of conflict. The public requires absolute defence.

Private Necessity

Rather than stemming from the demands of the community at large, private necessity is born out of individual self-interest. The defendant does so when he wants to protect his interests. It is not a full defence, as opposed to in cases of public necessity. To shed light on private requirements, consider the following example. Should the defendant have invaded his neighbour's property without authorization to prevent the fire from spreading to his land. Private necessity is governed by the principle known as "Necessitas inducit privilegium quod jura private," which states that "Necessity induces a privilege because of a private right."This proverb makes it rather evident that private defence is more of a privilege that is accorded to a diverse group of people.

Importance of Necessity

Because of necessity, regulations that, if followed rigidly, would have resulted in unfair outcomes (punishing positive behaviour) are made more flexible. Torture is protected under the concept of necessity when it is thought to be ethically acceptable. comparable to when a prisoner violates prison rules and leaves after being mistreated by guards on a physical and mental level. These are comforting times when need is present. Someone who acts in a "necessary" manner is effectively protected from criminal prosecution by the "necessity" argument. Defence needs could be rationally viewed as a moral check on crimes against humanity. Mala in se offences typically prohibit someone from harming other people, while the necessity defence limits the circumstances in which this is permissible. The defence should consider this when deciding when it is morally appropriate for someone to harm another person.

Application of the Necessity as a Defence

In an emergency, if someone is permitted to act inappropriately to protect themselves, another person, their property, or the community at large, they are entitled to use the relevant defence. It is necessary to prove the following to bolster the necessity defence:

• The injury that was inflicted was less than the harm that would have otherwise happened.

• The individual had a legitimate belief that his acts were required to avert an impending danger.

• There was nothing reasonable to do to prevent the damage.

• The threat of harm was not first posed by the individual.

When someone raises the necessity defence, the court has the authority to determine whether or not it applies in the particular case and whether or not the claimant is released from all liability. Invoking this justification becomes highly challenging since it becomes very difficult to establish whether or not there was a necessity. These kinds of situations usually include the absence of other people, thus it's challenging to prove that breaching the law is required to preserve lives. As a result, the defence of necessity may only be raised in unique situations when it is proven that it is necessary.

Limitation to the Defence of Necessity

The limited scope of the necessity defence is one of many tools that help maintain the state's monopoly on legitimate violence; it exists to empower individuals where individuals are supposed to be powerless and cannot be used to confer powers on the state as well. The necessity defence restricts the use of force by private individuals against the interests of others. Above all, a government body must determine what is proper under the necessity defence and consult with legal experts on permissible acts. The stronger state's monopoly on violence must inexorably include the weaker individual's use of violence since the government has more authority than private persons are allowed by the necessity of defence. The defence of necessity may only be raised if it is appropriate for the specific federal offence in question.

Case Laws on Necessity as a Defence

In the case of, Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co.

In this case, The defendant was at the plaintiff's pier unloading cargo from the defendant's vessel. The defendant tethered the ship to the pier because he was unable to safely exit it due to the development of a heavy storm. The pier sustained considerable damage after the ship was thrown against it by an unexpected wind. It was determined that even while stealing from or damaging someone else's property would be required for a private need, compensation would have to be given. The defendant purposely tied the ship to the dock; otherwise, it may have capsized and resulted in far more damage.

In the case of, Sirocco v. Geary

In this case, San Francisco experienced a significant fire. As the fire raged nearby, the plaintiff was trying to remove items from his home. To halt the plaintiff's home fire and stop it from spreading to other structures, the defendant (Mayor) gave the go-ahead for it to be demolished. The plaintiff claimed in his case that he might have recovered more of his possessions if his residence hadn't been bombed. The court determined that the right to necessity is independent of society and the state and arises from natural law. Individual liberties have to yield to the supreme law of imminent necessity. Here, extinguishing the Plaintiff's residence was required to quell the flames. It would have been too late to blow up the house if he had waited to do it to evacuate more of his belongings.

Conclusion

The necessity as a defence in tort is one of the most important defences among the other defences given under the tort. The defence of necessity prevents an innocent person from punishment. According to the doctrine of Necessity an act which is done in good faith and with an intent to prevent harm and injury the person committing such an act will not be held liable. Also in the necessity as a defence, the main purpose of such an act should be to prevent harm and injury. There are various defences given under the law of torts under which actions committed will not be held liable if it is done under the defences given in the law of Torts.