Mistake under Law of Torts - Overview, Structure, Properties & Uses

Mistake in Torts

Edited By Ritika Jonwal | Updated on Jul 02, 2025 05:44 PM IST

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.

This Story also Contains

The objective of General Defence in Tort
Various General Defences in Tort
Mistake Under The Law of Tort
Types of Mistakes Under The Law of Tort
Case Laws on Mistakes Under The Law of Torts
Conclusion

Mistake in Torts

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.

You can also Check

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.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is an example of Mistake in Tort?

For example- A person realized he had brought someone else's dog home with him when he saw a mark on the dog and realized it was not his dog. In this case, A will not be held accountable as he has the defence of factual error.

2. What is the case law on mistake in Tort?

The case of, Philips v. Brooks Ltd.

3. What is the meaning of common mistakes?

Similar to a mutual mistake, a common error occurs when both people make a mistake.

4. What is a mistake under Contract Act 1872?

According to the Indian Contract Act 1872, a mistake is an innocently held false idea that causes one party to misinterpret the other. When the parties cannot clearly understand the terms and conditions of the agreement, mistakes happen.

5. What are the types of mistakes in Tort?

The two types of Torts are Mistake of Fact and Mistake of Law.

6. How does the concept of mistake differ between criminal law and tort law?

In criminal law, mistakes can sometimes serve as a defense, potentially negating the mental state required for a crime. In tort law, mistakes generally do not excuse liability but may affect the degree of fault or damages awarded. Tort law focuses more on compensating the injured party rather than punishing the wrongdoer.

7. How does the "reasonable person" standard apply to mistakes in tort law?

The "reasonable person" standard is used to evaluate whether a person's mistake was reasonable under the circumstances. If a defendant's mistake is one that a reasonable person in the same situation might have made, it may affect the assessment of negligence or reduce liability. However, if the mistake falls below this standard, it may not excuse the tortious conduct.

8. Can a professional's mistake always be considered negligence in tort law?

Not all professional mistakes are automatically considered negligence. To be negligent, the professional's mistake must fall below the standard of care expected in their field. This standard is typically higher for professionals than for ordinary individuals. Factors such as the complexity of the situation, available information, and accepted practices in the profession are considered.

9. How does the doctrine of "informed mistake" relate to medical malpractice cases?

The doctrine of "informed mistake" in medical malpractice cases recognizes that not all adverse outcomes result from negligence. If a doctor makes a reasonable decision based on available information and accepted medical practices, even if it later proves to be a mistake, it may not be considered malpractice. This concept emphasizes the importance of the decision-making process rather than just the outcome.

10. What is the role of mistake in cases of misrepresentation in tort law?

In misrepresentation cases, a mistake can be relevant in determining whether the misrepresentation was fraudulent, negligent, or innocent. If the person making the statement honestly believed it to be true (a mistake), it might be classified as innocent misrepresentation. However, if they were careless in verifying the information, it could be negligent misrepresentation. The nature of the mistake affects the remedies available to the injured party.

11. Can a mistake of fact be a defense in tort law?

While a mistake of fact is not typically a complete defense in tort law, it can sometimes reduce liability or damages. The reasonableness of the mistake and its impact on the defendant's actions are considered. In some cases, a reasonable mistake of fact might negate the element of intent required for certain intentional torts.

12. How does the concept of "honest and reasonable mistake" apply in tort law?

An "honest and reasonable mistake" refers to an error made in good faith and with reasonable care. While it may not completely excuse liability in tort law, it can be a mitigating factor in assessing damages or determining the degree of fault. Courts may consider whether the mistake was truly honest and whether a reasonable person would have made the same error.

13. How does the concept of mistake relate to the defense of necessity in tort law?

The defense of necessity in tort law may involve a mistaken belief about the circumstances. If a person reasonably but mistakenly believes that an action is necessary to prevent a greater harm, this might affect the assessment of their liability. Courts will consider whether the mistake was reasonable given the information available at the time.

14. What is the relevance of mistake in cases of trespass to land?

In trespass to land cases, a mistake about property boundaries or ownership generally does not excuse liability, as trespass is typically a strict liability tort. However, an honest and reasonable mistake might affect the assessment of damages or the type of remedy awarded, especially in cases of continuing trespass.

15. How does the concept of mistake relate to the assumption of risk defense in tort law?

A mistake about the nature or extent of a risk can affect the validity of an assumption of risk defense. If a plaintiff was mistaken about a material aspect of the risk they were assuming, it might negate the defense. However, if the mistake was unreasonable or if the plaintiff assumed even unknown risks, the defense might still apply.

16. How does a mistake affect liability in strict liability torts?

In strict liability torts, such as those involving defective products or dangerous animals, the defendant's mistake or lack of intent generally does not affect liability. The focus is on the harm caused rather than the defendant's state of mind. However, in some cases, a mistake might be relevant in assessing damages or in determining if a product was unreasonably dangerous.

17. What is the relevance of mistake in determining the standard of care for children in negligence cases?

In negligence cases involving children, mistakes are evaluated differently than for adults. The standard of care for children is typically that of a reasonable child of similar age, intelligence, and experience. A mistake that might be negligent for an adult may be considered reasonable for a child, depending on their capacity to understand and avoid risks.

18. How does a mistake about the nature of a substance affect liability in cases involving hazardous materials?

A mistake about the nature of a substance can be crucial in cases involving hazardous materials. If a defendant reasonably but mistakenly believes a substance is harmless, it may affect the assessment of negligence. However, in strict liability cases for abnormally dangerous activities, such a mistake may not excuse liability. The key factors are the fores

19. What is a mistake in tort law?

A mistake in tort law refers to an error in judgment, perception, or understanding that may affect a person's actions or decisions, potentially leading to unintended harm. It's important to understand that not all mistakes result in liability, and the law considers various factors when determining if a mistake constitutes a tort.

20. What is the difference between a unilateral and bilateral mistake in tort law?

A unilateral mistake occurs when only one party is mistaken about a material fact, while a bilateral mistake involves both parties being mistaken. In tort law, unilateral mistakes are generally less likely to affect liability, while bilateral mistakes may sometimes lead to a contract being voidable or affect the assessment of negligence.

21. What is a mistake of law in tort cases?

A mistake of law occurs when a person misunderstands or is ignorant of a legal rule or its application. Generally, mistakes of law are not excused in tort cases, as individuals are presumed to know the law. However, in some rare instances, a mistake of law might affect the assessment of intent or reasonableness of conduct.

22. How does a mistake of fact impact the defense of self-defense in tort law?

A reasonable mistake of fact can sometimes support a claim of self-defense in tort law. If a person reasonably but mistakenly believes they are in danger and acts in self-defense, their mistake may be considered in determining liability. The key is whether their belief and subsequent actions were reasonable under the circumstances as they perceived them.

23. Can a mistake about legal rights or obligations affect liability in tort law?

Generally, a mistake about legal rights or obligations (mistake of law) does not excuse tortious conduct. The principle that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" applies in tort law as well. However, in some cases, such a mistake might be relevant in assessing the reasonableness of a person's actions or their state of mind.

24. How does the concept of mistake apply in cases of defamation?

In defamation cases, a mistake about the truth of a statement can be relevant. If the defendant honestly and reasonably believed the statement to be true, it might serve as a defense, particularly for matters of public concern. However, the degree of care taken to verify the information and the nature of the mistake are crucial factors in determining liability.

25. How does the concept of mistake relate to the defense of contributory negligence?

In contributory negligence, a plaintiff's mistake that contributes to their own injury can reduce or bar their recovery. The key question is whether the plaintiff's mistake was reasonable under the circumstances. If the mistake falls below the standard of care expected of a reasonable person, it may be considered contributory negligence.

26. How does a mutual mistake affect consent in tort law?

A mutual mistake can potentially vitiate consent in certain tort scenarios. If both parties are mistaken about a material fact that forms the basis of their interaction, it may affect the validity of any consent given. This can be particularly relevant in medical treatment cases or in situations where consent is a defense to an intentional tort.

27. Can a mistake in interpreting medical symptoms or test results be a defense in medical malpractice cases?

A mistake in interpreting medical symptoms or test results is not automatically a defense in medical malpractice cases. The key question is whether the mistake falls below the standard of care expected of a reasonably competent medical professional in the same specialty. If the mistake is one that a reasonable doctor might make given the available information, it may not constitute malpractice.

28. What is the significance of mistake in determining the scope of duty in negligence cases?

A mistake about the scope of one's duty can be significant in negligence cases. If a defendant reasonably but mistakenly believes they have no duty or a limited duty to the plaintiff, it may affect the determination of breach. However, the law generally imposes an objective standard, and a mistaken belief about legal obligations may not excuse a failure to meet the required standard of care.

29. What is the significance of mistake in cases involving informed consent in medical procedures?

In informed consent cases, a doctor's mistake in providing information can be crucial. If a physician mistakenly omits or misstates material information that a reasonable patient would consider important in making a decision, it could invalidate the consent and potentially lead to liability. The focus is on whether the patient was given accurate information to make an informed decision.

30. Can a mistake in interpreting scientific or technical data be a defense in product liability cases?

A mistake in interpreting scientific or technical data is generally not a defense in strict product liability cases, as the focus is on the product's defectiveness rather than the manufacturer's fault. However, in negligence-based product liability claims, the reasonableness of the mistake in light of available knowledge and industry standards may be considered in assessing liability.

31. How does a mistake about the extent of one's authority affect liability in tort cases involving agents or employees?

A mistake about the extent of one's authority can affect liability in cases involving agents or employees. If an agent mistakenly believes they have authority to act, they may be personally liable for torts committed. For the principal, liability may depend on whether the agent's mistake was reasonable and whether third parties reasonably relied on the apparent authority.

32. What is the significance of a mistake of identity in intentional torts?

A mistake of identity in intentional torts, such as battery or false imprisonment, generally does not excuse the tortious conduct. The intent to commit the act against a person is what matters, even if the specific identity of the victim was mistaken. This is known as the doctrine of "transferred intent."

33. Can a mistake in judgment be considered negligence in professional liability cases?

A mistake in judgment is not automatically considered negligence in professional liability cases. Professionals are allowed to exercise their judgment, and not every error leads to liability. However, if the mistake falls below the accepted standard of care for that profession, or if it results from a failure to gather necessary information or follow established protocols, it may be considered negligence.

34. What is the role of mistake in determining punitive damages in tort cases?

Mistakes can be relevant in assessing punitive damages. If a defendant's conduct was based on an honest mistake rather than recklessness or malice, it may reduce or eliminate punitive damages. Conversely, if a mistake was the result of gross negligence or willful disregard, it might support an award of punitive damages.

35. How does the concept of mistake apply in cases of negligent misstatement?

In negligent misstatement cases, a mistake in the information provided can be the basis of liability if the statement was made carelessly and the other party reasonably relied on it. The focus is on whether the defendant exercised reasonable care in ensuring the accuracy of the information, not whether they intended to mislead.

36. How does a mistake in calculation or measurement affect liability in professional negligence cases?

A mistake in calculation or measurement can lead to liability in professional negligence cases if it falls below the standard of care expected in the profession. However, minor errors that are within an acceptable margin or that a reasonably competent professional might make may not necessarily constitute negligence. The impact and foreseeability of the error are also considered.

37. Can a mistake in identifying the cause of harm affect causation in tort cases?

A mistake in identifying the cause of harm can affect the establishment of causation in tort cases. If a plaintiff or their experts mistakenly attribute harm to the wrong cause, it can undermine their case. Similarly, if a defendant can show that the true cause was mistakenly overlooked, it may affect liability. Accurate identification of causation is crucial in tort litigation.

38. How does a mistake about the extent of one's own injuries impact a tort claim?

A mistake about the extent of one's own injuries can affect the damages claimed in a tort case. If a plaintiff underestimates their injuries due to a mistake, they might settle for less than full compensation. Conversely, if they overestimate due to a mistaken belief, it could affect their credibility. Courts generally allow for some flexibility as the full extent of injuries may not be immediately apparent.

39. What is the relevance of mistake in cases of vicarious liability?

In vicarious liability cases, where an employer is held responsible for an employee's torts, the employee's mistake does not typically excuse the employer's liability. However, if the employee's mistake was so extraordinary that it falls outside the scope of employment, it might affect the application of vicarious liability. The nature and reasonableness of the mistake are considered in this context.

40. How does a mistake about the ownership of property affect liability in conversion cases?

In conversion cases, a mistake about the ownership of property generally does not excuse liability. The tort of conversion is typically one of strict liability, focusing on the interference with the owner's rights rather than the defendant's intent. However, an honest and reasonable mistake might affect the assessment of damages or the type of remedy awarded.

41. What is the significance of mistake in determining the standard of care in professional negligence cases?

In professional negligence cases, the standard of care is typically that of a reasonably competent professional in the same field. A mistake that falls within the range of what a reasonable professional might do under similar circumstances may not breach this standard. However, mistakes that result from a lack of skill, knowledge, or care expected of professionals in that field can lead to liability.

42. How does a mistake about the terms of a contract affect tort liability in cases involving contractual relationships?

A mistake about contract terms can sometimes blur the line between contract and tort law. While contract law has its own rules for mistakes, in tort law, such a mistake might be relevant in cases of negligent misrepresentation or where there's a duty of care in providing information. The reasonableness of the mistake and its impact on the parties' conduct are considered.

43. Can a mistake in following industry standards or guidelines affect liability in negligence cases?

A mistake in following industry standards or guidelines can be significant in negligence cases. While compliance with industry standards is often evidence of due care, a mistake in interpreting or applying these standards may still result in liability if it leads to harm. Courts consider whether the mistake was reasonable and whether adherence to the misinterpreted standard was sufficient to meet the duty of care.

44. What is the role of mistake in determining the foreseeability of harm in negligence cases?

A mistake in assessing the foreseeability of harm can be crucial in negligence cases. If a defendant reasonably but mistakenly believed that harm was not foreseeable, it might affect the determination of whether they breached their duty of care. However, if the mistake itself was unreasonable, it may not excuse liability.

45. How does the concept of mistake apply in cases of nuisance?

In nuisance cases, a mistake about the impact of one's actions on others or about property rights generally does not excuse liability. The focus is on the interference with the use and enjoyment of property rather than the defendant's intent. However, a mistake might be relevant in assessing the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct or in determining appropriate remedies.

46. How does a mistake in assessing risk affect liability in cases involving dangerous activities?

In cases involving dangerous activities, a mistake in assessing risk may not excuse liability, especially if the activity falls under strict liability. However, in negligence-based claims, the reasonableness of the mistake in light of available information and industry practices may be considered. The key is whether the defendant took appropriate precautions based on the risks that should have been foreseen.

47. Can a mistake about the identity or characteristics of a product affect liability in product liability cases?

A mistake about the identity or characteristics of a product generally does not affect liability in strict product liability cases. The focus is on whether the product was defective and caused harm, regardless of the manufacturer's knowledge or intent. However, in negligence-based product liability claims, a reasonable mistake might be relevant in assessing whether the manufacturer met its duty of care.

48. How does the concept of mistake relate to the duty to warn in tort law?

A mistake about the need for a warning or the adequacy of a given warning can be significant in duty to warn cases. If a manufacturer or seller reasonably but mistakenly believes a warning is unnecessary or that an existing warning is adequate, it may affect the assessment of negligence. However, in strict liability cases, the focus remains on whether the product was unreasonably dangerous without adequate warnings.