Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts

Inevitable accident is an unavoidable situation regardless of the fact that there was an exercise of reasonable amount of care with prudent skill and caution.

Let us understand Inevitable Accident by breaking up into two parts:-                                   

1. Accident
2. Inevitable                                                                                                                                    

An Accident can be defined as something which caused harm or injury and it was totally unexpected.

Inevitable means a situation which was bound to happen even though all the precautionary measures and reasonable care was taken.

Hence, inevitable accident is an unavoidable situation regardless of the fact that there was an exercise of reasonable amount of care with prudent skill and caution.

As observed by Greene,M.R., an accident is “one out of the ordinary course of things, something so unusual as not to be looked for by a person of ordinary prudence”.[1]

For example: Rajni, the defendant, lived in Lara colony. She had a beautiful terrace with a lot of flower pots decorated. There was a net all around her terrace to avoid the pots from falling on someone’s head. One fine day, a rat bit off the net from a portion which was not visible to eyes. A pot fell from the terrace on a stray dog that happened to pass underneath Rajni’s bungalow. Due to the hit on its head, the dog got furious and went and bit Sumita, the plaintiff who was another residence of the Lara colony because of which Sumita suffered injuries and therefore, sue Rajni. Here the defendant could take up the defence of inevitable accident because it was neither foreseeable nor under her control and moreover all the precautionary measures were also adopted by Rajni.

From the above example it is clear that to take up the defence of inevitable accident, the defendant need to establish two points as follows:-

1. All due care was adopted by the defendant
2. The defendant could not have reasonably foreseen it.

 Inevitable accidents can be divided into two categories:

1. Those caused by basic accidents: The forces of nature which are not connected with the agency of man or any other cause; and
2. Those which originate either from the agency of man or any other cause; The whole or part of the agency of the human being, whether in acts of commission or omission, failure to act or in any other cause independent of the agency of the natural forces.

Acts of God comes under the first category of Inevitable Accident. For example: In the case of Rajni and Sumita, suppose the pot didn’t fall due to the hole in net and the pot didn’t fall on the dog. Instead, it fall on Sumita due to an unusual earthquake in the region in spite of taking all due care and diligence by Rajni who already had the fencing done. Here it was an act of god which cannot have been foreseeable because earthquake was unusual in the area and hence cannot have been avoided. So it was an inevitable accident. Had earthquake been a known and usual phenomenon, then Rajni could have been made liable because she should have known that the earthquake can damage the fencing and the pot can fall on anyone’s head and cause injuries. Hence, lack of proper care.

Cases Pertaining to Inevitable Accident

In Nitro-glycerine case[2], a wooden case was to be transported to its destination was obtained by the defendants, a company of carriers, and its substance was not conveyed. It was discovered at an interim station that the contents had been leaking. Consequently, the case was brought to the premises of the defendants, which they had leased from the complainant, and the defendant’s servant proceeded to open the case for review, but the nitro-glycerine it housed detonated. They killed all the people present, and the building was destroyed.

For damages sustained by parts of the building let to other tenants as well as to the defendants, the landlord filed an action. As for the place occupied by them, the defendants accepted their responsibility for waste but denied it as for the rest of the house. In the first place, it was held that, in the lack of a fair basis of doubt, the defendants were not obliged to recognise that the contents of the packages were sold to them for carriage and that, without such knowledge in fact and without negligence, they were not responsible for harm incurred by the accident.

In Brown versus Kendal[3], the plaintiff’s and the dogs of the defendant were battling, they were beaten by the defendant in order to divide them, and the complainant was watching. The defendant inadvertently stabbed the plaintiff in the eye, causing him to suffer a serious injury. In an action brought by the appellant, it was held that the defendant’s action was a valid and legal one- proper act in itself, which he did by proper and secure means; and that if he mistakenly hit the plaintiff in doing this act, it was the result of a pure mistake, and thus, no action can lie in the eye and wound him.

In Fardon versus Harcourt- Rivington[4], the defendant left his car in the street and his dog inside. That dog was still calm and placid. The dog, which had been barking and leaping about in the vehicle, broke a glass panel while the plaintiff was walking by the car, and a fragment of the glass hit the left eye of the plaintiff, which had to be removed. It was concluded in an act for damages that the plaintiff could not be compensated as a motor car with a dog in it was not a matter that was risky in itself, and there was no error in not exercising caution against it because the accident was so improbable.

In Holmes v. Mather[5], while the horses of the defendant were guided by his servant on a public highway, the barking of a dog made the horses run away and they became so insurmountable that the servant could not deter them, but could direct them to some extent. When attempting to turn a corner safely without luck, the servant directed them in such a manner that they knocked down and wounded the complainant who was on the highway without the servant meaning it. It was considered that no action was necessary by the plaintiff for the servant had done his best under the situation.

In Stanley v. Powell[6], the defendant, a member of a shooting team, shot a pheasant.One of the shots that came from his gun bounced off a tree’s bough and fatally injured the complainant, who was involved in carrying cartridges and roleplaying game. It was held that there was no liability for the defendant as it was an inevitable accident. The ratio was criticised as erroneous in this case, but on the grounds of volenti non fit injuria, the decision itself can be supported.

In Coop. of Assam State, etc. Ltd. v. Smt. Federation v. Anubha Sinha[7], the premises belonging to the complainant, were issued to the defendant. The complainant, i.e. the tenant, begged the landlord to repair the faulty electrical wiring, but the landlord refused to modify the same one. An accidental fire possibly occurred in that inclosing due to short electrical communication circuits. No fault on the part of the tenant was found. It was found in an attempt by the landlord to demand damages from the tenant that, as it was an inevitable accident, the tenant could not be held responsible for the same.

In Shridhar Tiwari v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation[8], as the U.P.S.R.T. bus arrived near a village, a cyclist unexpectedly arrived in front of the bus. It had rained and there was a wet lane. The bus careened on the road as the driver applied brakes to save the cyclist, resulting in the rear portion of this bus entering the front portion of another bus coming from the opposite direction. It was noticed that at that time, both buses were driven at a reasonable speed and, notwithstanding the reasonable care on the part of the drivers of both buses, the accident happened. The accident was held to have happened due to an unforeseen accident and, thus, the defendant Company was not held responsible for the same on the ground of negligence.

In Padmavati v. Dugganaika[9], Two strangers took a lift in a jeep. One of the bolts connecting the right front wheel of the jeep to the axle gave way soon afterwards and the wheel flew away from the axle. The jeep was knocked down, and the two strangers were seriously wounded, leading to one of them dying. Since there was no data to justify that the defect was a licensed one and could have been identified by periodic check-up, it was considered to be a case of pure mistake. Therefore, the defendant, i.e. the jeep driver and his master, were not held responsible.

In National Coal Board v. Evans[10], The unavoidable accident was in a case of trespass to chattel. It’s called a good defence. There, the ancestors of the plaintiff in naming had laid an electric power without their awareness, under the land of a county council cable. In order to do the expeditions, the county council hired those contractors. The contractors, who were not aware of the underground cable, sustained the same damage during the digging. It has been claimed that it was the plaintiff’s predecessors’ fault that they wrongfully put their cable on the land of another. The defendants had no hope of finding the same thing, but they were not held accountable.

It should be noted that, despite appropriate precautions, defence against inevitable events is possible where the accident is unpredictable and the consequences are inevitable. Even if the accident is like heavy rain and flood, but if the same can be predicted and shielded from it, in such a situation, the defence against unforeseen incidents cannot be disputed, and the repercussions can be prevented by fair measures. This can be demonstrated by the Supreme Court’s decision in S. South Arcot Vedantacharya v. Department of Highways[11].

The bus plummeted into the stream on 14 November 1960, when a bus went over a culvert, the same gave way, resulting in the death of one person riding in the bus. An allegation of negligence has been brought against the Highways Department. Department of Highways on the ground, he appealed that there had been very heavy downpours in the last 15 days, and there had been more than 6 inches of rain a day before the disaster, resulting in a breach of the nearby lake, in which the water had entered the culvert at a terrible velocity, which ultimately caused it to give way.

The Engineers’ Report had revealed that the culvert had been sounded a day before, and that normal traffic had passed through it. Overturning the decision of the High Court of Madras, the Supreme Court held that it was negligent not to make adequate provision for the reinforcement of culverts and bridges against heavy rain and floods that could be forecasted. In addition, the Department of Highways could not be relieved of blame by simply arguing that the accident was due to heavy rain and flooding.

Furthermore, it had to be demonstrated that the necessary reasonable precautions had been taken to anticipate such rain and floods and, in spite of that, the accident took place. Since any such anticipatory action was not proven by the Highways Department, it was not an unavoidable accident and the Highways Department was therefore held liable.

Similarly, when long and drawn out tyres are used in a vehicle and then the same burst when the vehicle goes at an unnecessary pace, it is not possible to justify the unavoidable accident by simply showing that the accident was caused by the brief flash of the tyres. Likewise, in Oriental Fire & General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Raj Rani[12], all of a sudden, the front right spring and patta of the truck separated and the truck spun out of control and hit a tractor travelling in the opposite direction.

The driver and the truck owner were unable to show that adequate steps had been taken to make the truck functional, i.e. the technical fault was such that it could not be identified in spite of the preventive or reasonable measures. It was considered that it was not a case of an inevitable disaster instead, of negligence so the defendants were held liable.

Conclusion to Inevitable Accident

For drivers that are involved in those genuinely uncommon situations that are unforeseeable and unpreventable, the unavoidable accident doctrine may be a very helpful defence. However, the facts and circumstances of the individual case will depend on whether a driver is able to effectively escape responsibility with this protection. Whether the driver should have changed his or her driving to prevent the accident fully will always be the main issue. If there was no improvement the driver might have made, then the unavoidable doctrine of accident will provide a defendant with a successful defence.

However, if the driver has the option of changing his or her driving, reacting, or otherwise mitigating the circumstances within his or her control, that protection will not be eligible. Obviously, the safest strategy is to always drive with the utmost care and do everything within one’s capacity to minimise such imaginable risks. That is also not the case, though, and hence the explanation why there is the unavoidable accident doctrine.

For more notes on Law of torts, Click Here.

For law notes, Click Here.

[1] Ratanlal and Dhirajlal : The law of torts(26^th edition)

[2] Nitro-Glycerine Case, (1872) ; Ratanlal And dhirajlal

[3] Brown V. Kendal, (1859) ; Ratanlal And dhirajlal

[4]  Fardon v.  Harcourt- Rivington, (1932) ; Ratanlal And dhirajlal

[5] Holmes V. Mather (1875); Ratan lal and dhirajlal

[6] Stanley v. Powell (1891); Ratanlal and dhirajlal

[7] Assam State coop, etc. Ltd. v. Smt. Federation v. Anubha Sinha  A.I.R 2001 ; R.K BANGIA

[8] In Shridhar Tiwari v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation 1987; R.K BANGIA

[9] In Padmavati v. Dugganaika 1975; RK BANGIA

[10] In National Coal Board v. Evans 1951; RKBANGIA

[11] S. South Arcot Vedantacharya v. Department of Highways 1987; RKBANGIA

[12] Oriental Fire & General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Raj Rani 1986; RKBANGIA

This Article is authored by Vidhi Agarwal of Nirma University Institute Of Law pursuing B.A.L.L.B (Hons.)