Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts
Necessity as a Defence in Tort Law
What is Necessity?
Necessity is a legal defence in tort law that allows a defendant to avoid liability if they committed a tortious act to prevent a greater harm or danger. It is based on the idea that sometimes, breaking the law or causing harm is justified to protect life, property, or public interest from a serious threat.
Elements of the Defence of Necessity
For necessity to succeed as a defence in tort:
Imminent Danger or Emergency:
The defendant must act in response to a real and immediate danger or emergency situation.
Reasonable Belief:
The defendant must honestly and reasonably believe that the act is necessary to prevent greater harm.
Proportionality:
The harm caused by the defendant’s actions must be less than or proportionate to the harm avoided.
No Reasonable Alternative:
The defendant must show that there was no other reasonable course of action available.
Explanation Through Case Law
Case: Southwark London Borough Council v Williams (1971)
Facts: Homeless families broke into empty council houses to avoid living on the streets.
Issue: Whether their unlawful entry was justified by necessity because they needed shelter.
Held: The court held that necessity is a very limited defence in tort and did not justify breaking into the council houses. Although their need for shelter was real, the defence was not available because the harm caused by trespass was not outweighed by the necessity claimed.
Principle: Necessity must be balanced against the rights of others. It is not a blanket excuse for unlawful acts unless the harm prevented is significantly greater.
Case: Vincent v Lake Erie Transportation Co. (1910)
Facts: During a storm, a ship was kept tied to a dock to avoid damage from the storm. The ship caused damage to the dock by staying tied.
Issue: Whether the ship owner could be held liable for the damage caused to the dock.
Held: The court held that the defence of necessity applied to justify the act to protect the ship and crew from damage during the storm, but the ship owner was still liable to compensate the dock owner for the damage caused.
Principle: Necessity can justify the act, but it does not excuse liability for damage caused.
Key Points About Necessity Defence
Necessity is a Privilege, Not a Right:
The defendant is excused only because the circumstances justified the tortious act as the lesser evil.
Limited to Emergency Situations:
It applies mainly where immediate action is necessary to prevent serious harm, such as natural disasters, accidents, or other emergencies.
Does Not Always Exempt from Liability:
Even if necessity is established, the defendant might still need to compensate for any damage caused (as in Vincent v Lake Erie).
Public vs Private Necessity:
Public necessity protects the public or large groups and might exempt from liability.
Private necessity protects an individual’s interest but usually requires compensation for damages.
Summary
The necessity defence in tort law permits a defendant to avoid liability when their wrongful act was committed to avoid a greater harm.
It requires imminent danger, reasonable belief, proportionality, and no alternatives.
Important cases like Southwark v Williams and Vincent v Lake Erie illustrate how necessity is applied and its limitations.
Necessity may excuse the act but often does not remove the duty to compensate for any damage caused.
RELATED Blog
0 comments