Download Careers360 App
Inevitable accident under the Law of Torts

Inevitable accident under the Law of Torts

Edited By Ritika Jonwal | Updated on Jul 02, 2025 05:41 PM IST

Unliquidated damages are the form of compensation used in Law of Torts instances involving civil wrongs. By depending on particular defenses, or legal defenses, the defendant might be able to avoid accountability in some circumstances. General defences, which can be made for various wrongs, and particular defences, which can only be raised for specific wrongs, are the two categories of defences. Among these general defences is the argument of inevitable accident tort.

This Story also Contains
  1. General Defences Under the Law of Tort
  2. Different Types of General Defences
  3. Inevitable Accident in Torts Meaning
  4. Essentials of Inevitable Accidents in Tort Cases
  5. Exceptions of Inevitable Accidents Tort
  6. Relation between Acts of God and Inevitable Accidents Tort
  7. Inevitable Accidents in Tort Cases
  8. Nature of an Accident
  9. Conclusion
Inevitable accident under the Law of Torts
Inevitable accident under the Law of Torts

As implied by the term, inevitable accidents in tort cases are ones that, in most cases, could not have been avoided. Put simply, an accident is an occurrence that results in unanticipated harm to a person or piece of property. This accident is referred to as inevitable if it was not anticipated and could not have been prevented even with the defendant's reasonable care.

General Defences Under the Law of Tort

The Defense of Inevitable Accident tort is one of the general defences under the Law of Torts. In General Defences Even after proving every element of a particular tort, the defendant can avoid liability by raising specified general defences in a lawsuit brought by the plaintiff. It is important to remember that these defences' potencies differ according to the specifics of each instance.

Different Types of General Defences

Volenti non-fit injuria

The exact translation of the Latin phrase "Volenti non fit injuria" which asserts that someone who provides their consent to be damaged is not entitled to compensation for that tort, is "To a willing person no injury is done." The plaintiff's assent is a powerful defence against him if he voluntarily consents to harm; he cannot then claim that harm was caused by him. No one defends a privilege that he has freely renounced or given up. A clear or implicit consent to endure the harm may be given.

In the case of Padmavathi and Ors. v. Dugganaika and Ors.

In this case, In a jeep, two strangers agreed to ride together. Suddenly, a technical issue caused the Jeep to tumble over, injuring them. The jeep's owner and driver were sued. The defendants were found not liable by the court because the plaintiff voluntarily used the lift and the accident was not reasonably foreseeable.

When the Plaintiff is the Wrongdoer

This type of General Defence is influenced by the maxim- Ex turpi causa non orithur actio, which means no action can arise from an immoral cause.

According to this broad defence, even in cases where the plaintiff is at fault (having committed an illegal act), he is not permitted to sue the defendant, even in cases where he has suffered losses.

In the case of Collins v. Rension

In this instance, the plaintiff climbed a ladder to place a notice on the defendant's garden wall. When the plaintiff refused to come down, he claimed, he gently pushed them off the ladder. However, the plaintiff prevailed in the court's ruling.

Act of God

This generic defence is similar to inevitable accident tort in that it blames natural forces rather than human-caused causes for the disaster.. The event must be remarkable and not predictable in a reasonable manner

Essentials to Consitute Act of God

The essential conditions to constitute an Act of God are-

  • Work of natural forces

  • The event happening must be unexpected and extraordinary and is not under the control of a human being.

In the case of Nichols v. Marsland

In this case, By damming some natural streams on his property, the defendant created a few artificial lakes. When an exceptional rainfall occurred an uncommon occurrence the lake's embankments gave way. The defendant was found not guilty by the courts due to the unusual nature of the incident, which precluded the use of the defence of an act of God.

Inevitable Accident in Torts Meaning

The defence of an "inevitable accident tort" may be invoked when harm is inflicted while acting properly, with all reasonable care, for any unavoidable reason. As a result, the damage does not give rise to a cause of action. It is based on the notion that the defendants will not be held accountable if the plaintiff suffers harm notwithstanding their lack of malicious intent and is one of the numerous common defenses available to them under tort law.

Essentials of Inevitable Accidents in Tort Cases

The following are the essentials to constitute an Inevitable Accident tort. They are-

  • An accident must occur

  • Such accidents must be unintended and unexpected even after taking reasonable care and caution.

  • Therefore, there had to be no negligence on the part of the individual, and there had to be pain, injury, damage, or loss experienced by another individual as a result.

Exceptions of Inevitable Accidents Tort

Here are the exceptions of inevitable accidents tort under which the defence of Inevitable accidents tort will not be constituted.

Trespassing of Property

The defence of an inevitable accident tort is unacceptable in trespass cases. This is to ensure that the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff rather than the defendant.

Strict liability

It is inappropriate to use the "inevitable accident tort" defence in cases when there is an absolute liability. This is because strict responsibility is unaffected by things like negligence, the intention behind the behaviour, awareness of the transgression, and other things. The only factor that determines guilt in this case is the potential for substantial harm to others, which cannot be avoided, not even with the use of appropriate safety measures.

Negligence

Like in trespass cases, the defence of an inevitable accident tort is not acceptable in a Negligence case. This is to avoid leaving it up to the plaintiff to prove the defendant's fault.

Relation between Acts of God and Inevitable Accidents Tort

Both the Inevitable accident tort and Act of God are general defenses under the Law of Torts and both work on the principle that despite taking necessary precautions the accident are inevitable and unavoided. Another broad defence against the liability imposed by tort law is an act of god. It might be seen as a continuation of the defence against unavoidable mishaps. The distinction is that in the case of an Act of God, natural occurrences like extremely high rain, tides, storms, etc. are what caused the ensuing loss or damage. Conversely, in cases of accidents that are unavoidable, the cause of the accident can be due to external factors beyond the defendant's control.

Inevitable Accidents in Tort Cases

In the case of Holmes v. Mather

In this case, The horses were being driven by the defendant's servant on a public highway when all of a sudden a dog began barking, startling the horses. The plaintiff was hurt by the defendant's servant's uncontrollable wild horses, even though he exercised reasonable caution. Because the plaintiff's injuries were the result of an unavoidable accident, the court decided in favour of the defendant.

In the case of Shridhar Tiwari v. U.P. State Road Transportation Corporation

In this case, a biker abruptly crossed in front of the U.P.S.R.T.C. bus as it was approaching a settlement. Even after using the brakes, the driver was unable to stop the bus due to the heavy rain, and as a result, the bus rear-ended crashed with a bus that was going the other way.

It was found that both drivers used due caution and took all necessary efforts to prevent the incident. The decision was made for this to occur. It was decided that the defendant was not at fault.

Nature of an Accident

Accidents can be caused by several circumstances, including:

  • Human error is the major cause of accidents, which may be attributed to causes such as carelessness, recklessness, distracted driving, and a lack of situational awareness.
  • Mechanical failure, such as malfunctions, flaws, or poor maintenance in cars, machinery, and other equipment, is another major factor to accidents.
  • Natural catastrophes, severe weather conditions, and dangerous surroundings are examples of environmental variables that can dramatically raise the likelihood of an accident occurring.
  • Unexpected circumstances, such as abrupt medical emergency or unpredictable animal activity, can occasionally cause mishaps that are beyond human control.

Conclusion

The Inevitable Accident tort is one of the general defences under the Law of Torts. The Law of Torts provides general defences under which a person is not held accountable for his acts. In general defences, a person is not held accountable or liable for certain actions if done would be held liable in ordinary circumstances. The exceptions under the Law of Torts as provided under this article are volenti non fit injuria, acts done by the plaintiff themselves and Acts of God under these mentioned conditions a person is not held liable for the actions committed.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is an inevitable accident in tort cases?

In the Law of Torts, inevitable accident means events that are unexpected and unavoidable even after taking reasonable care and precautions.

2. What is an Act of God in an Inevitable Accident?

Act of God in Inevitable accident means acts which are the outcome of violent nature and human beings cannot avoid it.

3. What is an example of Inevitable Accident?

Examples of inevitable accidents are those accidents arising from natural calamities like floods, lightning etc.

4. What is the difference between a necessity and an inevitable accident?

Necessity means Small harm or damage is done to prevent a greater harm from happening whereas inevitable accidents mean the wrongful act occurred even after taking all the precautions.

5. What is an accident in the Law of Torts?

An accident in the Law of Torts means an unexpected dangerous activity. 

6. Can an inevitable accident defense be used in cases of defamation?
It's uncommon but possible. For instance, if false information was published despite thorough fact-checking due to an unforeseeable error in a typically reliable source.
7. Can an inevitable accident defense be used in cases of vicarious liability?
Yes, an employer might claim that their employee's actions resulted in an inevitable accident, absolving both the employee and the employer of liability.
8. Can an inevitable accident defense be used in cases of nuisance?
It's possible but rare. If a nuisance was caused by a truly unforeseeable event despite all reasonable precautions, an inevitable accident defense might apply.
9. Can an inevitable accident defense be used in cases involving professional malpractice?
It's rare but possible. A professional would need to prove that the negative outcome was due to a truly unforeseeable circumstance, despite adhering to all professional standards and best practices.
10. Can an inevitable accident defense be used in cases of battery?
It's rare but possible. For instance, if someone lost consciousness due to an unforeseeable medical condition and inadvertently struck someone while falling.
11. What are the key elements required to prove an inevitable accident?
To prove an inevitable accident, one must demonstrate: 1) the event was unforeseeable, 2) the defendant took all reasonable precautions, and 3) the accident occurred despite these precautions.
12. What's the difference between an inevitable accident and a pure accident?
An inevitable accident is one that couldn't have been prevented even with reasonable care, while a pure accident may have been preventable but occurred without negligence.
13. How does the concept of inevitable accident relate to the doctrine of unavoidable accident?
These terms are often used interchangeably in tort law. Both refer to accidents that occur despite all reasonable care and couldn't have been prevented.
14. How does the concept of res ipsa loquitur interact with inevitable accident claims?
Res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) and inevitable accident are generally incompatible. If res ipsa loquitur applies, it suggests negligence, which contradicts the notion of an inevitable accident.
15. Can an inevitable accident defense be used in cases of environmental pollution?
It's rare but possible. If a company can prove that pollution occurred despite all reasonable precautions and due to an unforeseeable event, they might claim inevitable accident.
16. How does foreseeability relate to inevitable accidents?
Foreseeability is crucial in determining whether an accident was inevitable. If an event was reasonably foreseeable, it cannot be considered an inevitable accident.
17. Can human error ever be considered an inevitable accident?
Generally, no. Human errors are typically considered preventable and therefore not inevitable. However, there may be rare exceptions in extraordinary circumstances.
18. How does the concept of inevitable accident apply in medical malpractice cases?
In medical malpractice cases, the inevitable accident defense is rarely successful as most medical procedures have known risks. However, it might apply in cases of truly unforeseen complications.
19. Can technological malfunctions be considered inevitable accidents?
It depends on the circumstances. If the malfunction was truly unforeseeable and occurred despite proper maintenance and precautions, it might be considered an inevitable accident.
20. Can an inevitable accident defense be used in cases of product liability?
It's rare but possible. If a product defect was truly unforeseeable and occurred despite all reasonable precautions in manufacturing and testing, it might be considered an inevitable accident.
21. Can an inevitable accident defense be used in cases of trespass?
Yes, if someone inadvertently trespassed due to truly unforeseeable circumstances, such as being swept onto private property by an unexpected natural event.
22. Can an inevitable accident defense be used in cases involving strict product liability?
Generally no, as strict liability holds manufacturers responsible regardless of fault. However, some jurisdictions may allow it for truly unforeseeable product defects.
23. How does the concept of inevitable accident apply in cases of food contamination?
If contamination occurred despite following all safety protocols and was due to an unforeseeable factor, it might be considered an inevitable accident. However, this is rare in food safety cases.
24. How does the inevitable accident defense interact with the concept of res judicata?
Res judicata (a matter already judged) would prevent re-litigation of a case where an inevitable accident defense was previously accepted or rejected.
25. How does the inevitable accident defense relate to the concept of novus actus interveniens?
An inevitable accident can be seen as a form of novus actus interveniens (a new intervening act) that breaks the chain of causation between the defendant's actions and the harm.
26. Can an inevitable accident defense be used in cases of premises liability?
Yes, but it's challenging. The property owner would need to prove that the hazard was truly unforeseeable and occurred despite regular inspections and maintenance.
27. How does the inevitable accident defense interact with comparative negligence laws?
If an inevitable accident is proven, comparative negligence wouldn't apply as there's no negligence to compare. The defendant would be absolved of liability.
28. How does the concept of inevitable accident apply in cases of sports injuries?
In sports, the assumption of risk often applies more than inevitable accident. However, if an injury resulted from a truly unforeseeable event not inherent to the sport, inevitable accident might be claimed.
29. Can an inevitable accident defense be used in cases involving children?
Yes, but courts often hold a higher standard of care when children are involved. The defendant would need to prove they took extra precautions considering the presence of children.
30. How does the inevitable accident defense relate to the concept of proximate cause?
An inevitable accident breaks the chain of proximate cause. If proven, it shows that the defendant's actions were not the legal cause of the harm, as the accident was unforeseeable and unavoidable.
31. What is an inevitable accident in tort law?
An inevitable accident in tort law is an unforeseeable event that occurs despite the defendant exercising reasonable care and precaution. It's a defense that, if successfully proven, can absolve the defendant of liability for harm caused.
32. Can negligence coexist with an inevitable accident?
No, negligence and inevitable accident are mutually exclusive. If negligence is proven, it means the accident was preventable and therefore not inevitable.
33. In which types of tort cases is the inevitable accident defense most commonly used?
The inevitable accident defense is most commonly used in cases involving vehicle accidents, workplace injuries, and product liability claims.
34. How does the burden of proof work in cases involving inevitable accident claims?
The burden of proof lies with the defendant who is claiming inevitable accident as a defense. They must provide evidence to support their claim that the accident was truly unforeseeable and unavoidable.
35. Can an inevitable accident defense be used in strict liability cases?
Generally, no. Strict liability cases hold the defendant responsible regardless of fault or intent, making the inevitable accident defense typically inapplicable.
36. How does the concept of inevitable accident differ from an "Act of God"?
While both are defenses in tort law, an inevitable accident can be caused by human actions or natural events, whereas an "Act of God" specifically refers to natural phenomena beyond human control or foresight, such as earthquakes or tsunamis.
37. How does the inevitable accident defense interact with the concept of duty of care?
The inevitable accident defense doesn't negate the duty of care. Rather, it demonstrates that the defendant fulfilled their duty of care but the accident occurred anyway due to unforeseeable circumstances.
38. Can weather conditions contribute to an inevitable accident?
Yes, sudden and severe weather conditions that couldn't have been reasonably anticipated can contribute to an inevitable accident. However, common weather patterns wouldn't typically qualify.
39. What's the relationship between inevitable accidents and the assumption of risk doctrine?
While both can be defenses in tort law, they're distinct. Assumption of risk involves a plaintiff knowingly accepting a risk, while an inevitable accident is unforeseen by all parties.
40. How does the inevitable accident defense differ from the sudden emergency doctrine?
While both involve unforeseen circumstances, the sudden emergency doctrine applies to the plaintiff's actions in response to an emergency, while inevitable accident relates to the cause of the incident itself.
41. Can multiple parties claim inevitable accident in the same case?
Yes, it's possible for multiple defendants to claim inevitable accident if they can all demonstrate that they took reasonable precautions and the accident was unforeseeable from their respective positions.
42. How does the inevitable accident defense apply in cases of autonomous vehicle accidents?
This is an evolving area of law. An inevitable accident defense might apply if the autonomous system encountered a truly unforeseeable situation that it wasn't programmed to handle, despite extensive testing and safeguards.
43. Can psychological factors contribute to an inevitable accident?
Generally, no. Psychological factors are typically considered within human control or foreseeable. However, in rare cases of sudden, unforeseeable mental health crises, it might be considered.
44. Can natural disasters be considered inevitable accidents in tort cases?
Often, yes. Natural disasters are typically considered "Acts of God" and can be classified as inevitable accidents if they were truly unforeseeable in the specific context.
45. How does the inevitable accident defense apply in cases of occupational diseases?
It's rarely applicable. Occupational diseases typically develop over time and are often foreseeable risks of certain professions. However, if a sudden, unforeseeable exposure caused immediate harm despite precautions, it might apply.
46. How does the concept of inevitable accident relate to the duty to warn in product liability cases?
If an inevitable accident defense is successful, it suggests that the risk was unforeseeable, and therefore, there was no duty to warn about it.
47. How does the inevitable accident defense interact with the concept of ultrahazardous activities?
The inevitable accident defense is generally not applicable to ultrahazardous activities, as these activities carry inherent, foreseeable risks.
48. How does the inevitable accident defense relate to the concept of intervening causes?
An inevitable accident can be seen as a type of intervening cause that breaks the chain of causation between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's harm.
49. How does the concept of inevitable accident apply in cases of animal attacks?
If an animal owner can prove that the attack was due to a truly unforeseeable circumstance and occurred despite taking all reasonable precautions, they might claim inevitable accident.
50. Can an inevitable accident defense be used in cases of false imprisonment?
It's rare but possible. For example, if someone was accidentally locked in a room due to an unforeseeable malfunction in a typically reliable locking system.
51. How does the concept of inevitable accident apply in cases of invasion of privacy?
It's rare but possible. For instance, if private information was inadvertently disclosed due to an unforeseeable technological glitch despite all reasonable security measures.
52. Can an inevitable accident defense be used in cases of negligent infliction of emotional distress?
Yes, if the emotional distress was caused by a truly unforeseeable event that occurred despite all reasonable precautions.
53. How does the concept of inevitable accident apply in cases of attractive nuisance?
It's challenging to apply, as attractive nuisance cases involve foreseeable risks to children. However, if harm occurred due to a truly unforeseeable factor despite child-proofing measures, it might apply.
54. Can an inevitable accident defense be used in cases involving breach of fiduciary duty?
It's rare but possible. A fiduciary might claim that a breach occurred due to truly unforeseeable circumstances despite taking all reasonable precautions to fulfill their duties.
55. How does the inevitable accident defense interact with the concept of joint and several liability?
If an inevitable accident is proven, it would typically absolve that defendant of liability, potentially affecting the allocation of damages among remaining defendants in a joint and several liability case.
Extinction of Liability

02 Jul'25 06:07 PM

Nuisance as a Tort

02 Jul'25 05:48 PM

Nature and Concept of Tort

02 Jul'25 05:45 PM

Legal Remedies in Tort

02 Jul'25 05:45 PM

Mistake in Torts

02 Jul'25 05:44 PM

Negligence in Tort

02 Jul'25 05:43 PM

Plaintiff: The Wrongdoer

02 Jul'25 05:42 PM

Strict Liability

02 Jul'25 05:42 PM

Articles

Back to top