Plaintiff, The Wrongdoer: Meaning, Types, Rights, and Justice Explained

Plaintiff: The Wrongdoer

Edited By Ritika Jonwal | Updated on Jul 02, 2025 05:42 PM IST

Plaintiff the wrongdoer is one of the general defences given under the law of torts. In the case of General Defence, a person will not be held liable for the actions if it comes under the general defences. The defendant's legal rights and interests are safeguarded by applying these defences. If the defendant successfully establishes a defence, they will not be held accountable for any harm or injury caused to the plaintiff; nonetheless, the plaintiff must prove their case.

This Story also Contains

Plaintiff the wrongdoer meaning with Example
Meaning of General Defences
Purpose of General Defences
Types of General defences
Plaintiff the Wrongdoer in Tort meaning
Application of the Defence
Why was the principle adopted?
Plaintiff the Wrongdoer Case Laws
Conclusion

Plaintiff the wrongdoer meaning with Example

'Plaintiff the wrongdoer' is founded on the idea of "ex turpi causa non ortitur actio," which states that "no action arises from a wrongful cause." In this situation, the plaintiff has no legal remedy because the injury he suffered was caused by his own actions. 'Plaintiff the wrongdoer', rather than being a defence, is just another way of articulating the same premise. This idea appears to serve as the foundation for several additional defences.

For example, if a twenty-something Abhik attacks a person and the person responds in a similar way to protect himself, the person is said to be using his right of private defence; Abhik could have reasonably assumed that the person would defend himself, to the extent of hitting him back in self-defence, thus he knowingly consented to suffer that harm (volenti non fit injuria); and finally, the essence of the other two defences, it was Abhik's wrongful act.

Meaning of General Defences

The defendant is responsible when a plaintiff files a lawsuit against them alleging a specific tort or breach of a legal right that results in legal damages and the plaintiff successfully establishes the elements of the lawsuit.

However, there are a few situations in which the defendant can assert defences to absolve himself of accountability. The general tort defences listed below are these.

Purpose of General Defences

The primary objective of general defences in tort law is to provide a fair and reasonable division of rights between the plaintiff and the defendant. To protect the defendant's legal rights and prevent them from being held accountable for events beyond their control, several defences are required.

A framework for evaluating whether the defendant behaved appropriately in the specific situation is also provided by these defences.

Types of General defences

Private Defences

In tort situations, the most common general defence is Private Defence. When the defendant, while in urgent danger, uses reasonable force to defend his body, property, or the property of another, and has no time to report the occurrence to the right authorities, it is deemed a private defence. The harm inflicted ought to be suitable given the situation.

Volenti non-fit injuria

The Volenti non fit injuria defence contends that the plaintiff has voluntarily accepted the risk of damage or injury. The defendant can argue that since the plaintiff took the action voluntarily and accepted the risk involved, there is no way to make up for any harm that comes from it.

Essentials of Volenti non-fit injuria

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 plaintiff must have accepted the danger.

In the case of Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club

In this case, The defendant's track hosted an automobile racing event that the plaintiff attended. The plaintiff was hurt when two automobiles crashed during the race and one of them was thrown into the spectator area. The plaintiff knew there would be a chance of injury, thus the court determined that she willfully accepted the risk of going to the race. Consequently, the plaintiff's injuries absolved the defendant of any liability.

Inevitable Accident

The defence of an inevitable accident states that there was no way to have avoided the damage or injuries. The defendant may contend that they shouldn't be held accountable as the harm or injury was caused by unforeseen circumstances.

Essentials of Inevitable Accident

The damage or injury sustained was not anticipated.
The injury or harm sustained resulted from unforeseen events.

In the case of Stanley v. Powell

In this case, The plaintiff and the defendant were both taking part in a pheasant shooting competition. The bullet struck the plaintiff, seriously injuring her, after ricocheting off an oak tree while the defendant was firing at a pheasant. Since the incident was deemed to be an inevitable accident, the defendant was declared not guilty.

Act of God

Anything that is defended as an act of God usually means that some uncontrollable natural phenomenon caused harm or injury. The defendant can argue that since the harm or injury was caused by an act of God, they shouldn't be held responsible.

Essentials of Act of God

The damage or injury was caused by uncontrollable natural occurrences.
The injury or harm could not have been avoided by the defendant.

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.

Essentials of Statutory Authority

The defendant was operating under a statute, and
the defendant's actions were permitted by law.

Plaintiff the Wrongdoer in Tort meaning

The law absolves the defendant in cases where the plaintiff performed an illegal act, acted improperly, or was careless in using due diligence. This justification stems from the Latin adage "ex turpi causa non oritur action" (no action follows from an immoral cause). Thus, in tort proceedings, a plaintiff's illegal act may provide a powerful defence.

This adage expresses the belief that an individual cannot file a lawsuit for their misconduct. In tort proceedings, if the plaintiff's claim is founded on illegal, immoral, or contrary to public policy conduct, defendants commonly utilize it as a defence. Consequently, a plaintiff's unlawful act may provide a good defence in tort cases.

This adage applies to contract law, restitution law, property law, trust law, and tort law as well. If the adage is implemented correctly, it becomes an absolute barrier to healing. Though it covers both immoral and criminal behaviour, it is most often known as the illegality defence. Despite being hardly employed, this defence has long been discussed.

In the case of Pitts v. Hunt

In this case, There was an eighteen-year-old rider. He suggested that his sixteen-year-old acquaintance drive while intoxicated. However, an accident claimed the life of the rider of their motorcycle in an instant. After suffering severe injuries, the pillion rider filed a lawsuit against the deceased person's family to obtain compensation. Since he was the one who caused the wrong in this instance, his plea was denied.

Essentials of the Defence

The hurt or injury sustained had to be caused in part by the plaintiff.
There must be a substantial plaintiff contribution to the harm.

Application of the Defence

The "ex turpi causa non oritur actio" rule applies where the plaintiff's claim stems from an unlawful or immoral act. The guiding principle is based on the notion that the court should not reward a plaintiff who has suffered injury as a result of their own immoral or illegal activities since doing so would be seen as approving or encouraging illegal behaviour.

Why was the principle adopted?

In the seventeenth century, the concept of "ex turpi causa non oritur actio" was first introduced by English common law. During the period, widespread deception and fraud prompted the development of the notion. The courts forbade anyone involved in unethical or illegal behaviour from profiting from it. The idea was also to deter people from acting immorally or illegally by preventing them from getting justice if their actions hurt other people. The idea was seen as a way to uphold the integrity of the judicial system and encourage social order.

It is necessary to ascertain the connection between the plaintiff's wrongdoing and the damages he has incurred to establish this defence. If the harm he has experienced is solely due to his actions, then he is not entitled to pursue legal action.

Plaintiff the Wrongdoer Case Laws

In the case of Hammer Smith Rail Co. v. Brand

In this case, The trains on the railway line built under a statutory provision caused loud noise and vibrations that reduced the plaintiff's property value. The defendant's complete defence was established when the court decided that the construction was permitted by statute, absolving the defendant of all liability for damages.

In the case of Bird v. Holbrook

In this case, The plaintiff was granted compensation for the harm he endured as a result of spring guns that were positioned in the defendant's garden without prior notice.

Conclusion

Plaintiff the Wrong Doer is one of the general defences under the law of Torts. According to this Tort, in cases where a plaintiff is a wrongdoer in such a case, he will only be liable for his acts. General Defences under the Law of Torts means a person will not be liable for his actions under the exceptions like Private Defence, Statutory Authority, Act of God, Volenti non-fit injuria and inevitable Accident under these conditions a person will not be liable for the acts.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What does the plaintiff is the wrongdoer mean?

The defence of the plaintiff the wrongdoer states that the plaintiff was also liable for the harm or suffering incurred

2. Who is the wrongdoer under the Law of Torts?

An offender is the one who perpetrates the tort or wrong.

3. What is the Plaintiff’s Fault?

In a few cases, the plaintiff might be partially to blame for the harm he experiences.

4. What is the legal maxim of plaintiff the Wrongdoer?

Based on the maxim ex turpi causa, applies when the plaintiff is the one who committed the wrong.

5. What is the meaning of Volenti non-fit Injuria?

According to Volenti non-fit injuria the plaintiff willfully accepts the harm or danger.

6. What is assumption of risk and how does it affect a plaintiff's claim?

Assumption of risk is a defense where the defendant argues that the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risks associated with a particular activity. If proven, this can reduce or eliminate the defendant's liability. There are two types: express (where the plaintiff explicitly agrees to assume risks) and implied (where the plaintiff's actions suggest they were aware of and accepted the risks).

7. What is contributory negligence and how does it affect a plaintiff's claim?

Contributory negligence is a defense in tort law where the defendant argues that the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to their injury. In jurisdictions that follow pure contributory negligence, if the plaintiff is found to be even 1% at fault, they may be barred from recovering any damages. This harsh rule has been replaced by comparative negligence in many jurisdictions.

8. How does a plaintiff's consent affect their ability to bring a tort claim?

Consent is a defense to many torts. If a plaintiff has given valid consent to the defendant's actions, they generally cannot later claim those actions were tortious. However, the consent must be informed and voluntary, and it only applies to the specific actions or risks that were consented to. Consent to one action doesn't necessarily imply consent to all related actions.

9. How does a plaintiff's failure to wear a seatbelt or helmet affect their claim in a vehicle accident case?

A plaintiff's failure to wear a seatbelt or helmet can affect their claim through the principle of contributory or comparative negligence. While it doesn't typically bar recovery completely, it may reduce the damages awarded. Some jurisdictions have specific "seatbelt defense" laws that determine how this failure can be considered in calculating damages.

10. How does a plaintiff's failure to follow medical advice affect their damages claim?

A plaintiff's failure to follow reasonable medical advice can be seen as a failure to mitigate damages. If this failure leads to worsened injuries or prolonged recovery, the plaintiff may not be able to recover for these additional damages. However, the plaintiff is only required to take reasonable steps, not extraordinary measures.

11. How does the "clean hands doctrine" relate to plaintiffs in tort cases?

The "clean hands doctrine" is an equitable principle that requires plaintiffs to have acted ethically and in good faith in relation to the matter they're bringing to court. If a plaintiff has "unclean hands" (i.e., has engaged in wrongful conduct related to the case), they may be barred from seeking certain remedies or their claim may be dismissed entirely.

12. How does comparative negligence differ from contributory negligence?

Comparative negligence is a more modern approach that allows a plaintiff to recover damages even if they were partially at fault. Under this system, the plaintiff's damages are reduced by their percentage of fault. For example, if a plaintiff is found to be 30% at fault, they can still recover 70% of their damages. This is considered more equitable than the all-or-nothing approach of contributory negligence.

13. Can a plaintiff's illegal activity bar them from recovering damages in a tort case?

Yes, in some cases, a plaintiff's illegal activity can bar them from recovering damages. This is known as the "illegality defense" or "ex turpi causa" principle. If the plaintiff's injury occurred while they were engaged in illegal activity, and that activity is closely connected to the injury, courts may refuse to allow recovery on public policy grounds.

14. What is the "last clear chance" doctrine and how does it relate to plaintiff fault?

The "last clear chance" doctrine is a rule that allows a plaintiff to recover damages even if they were negligent, provided the defendant had the last opportunity to avoid the accident but failed to do so. This doctrine developed as a way to mitigate the harshness of contributory negligence rules and emphasizes the importance of taking reasonable steps to prevent harm, even when faced with another's negligence.

15. How does the concept of "volenti non fit injuria" apply to plaintiffs in tort cases?

"Volenti non fit injuria" is a Latin phrase meaning "to a willing person, injury is not done." This principle states that if someone voluntarily places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing and appreciating the danger, they cannot then complain about the harm if it occurs. It's similar to assumption of risk and can be used as a defense against a plaintiff's claim.

16. What is the concept of "plaintiff as wrongdoer" in tort law?

The concept of "plaintiff as wrongdoer" in tort law refers to situations where the person bringing a lawsuit (the plaintiff) has also engaged in wrongful conduct that contributed to their own injury or loss. This principle is important because it can affect the plaintiff's ability to recover damages or the amount of compensation they may receive.

17. What is the concept of "unclean hands" and how can it affect a plaintiff's claim in equity?

The doctrine of "unclean hands" is an equitable principle stating that a party seeking equitable relief must have acted ethically and in good faith with respect to the subject of the claim. If a plaintiff has acted unethically or in bad faith in relation to the matter at hand, they may be denied equitable remedies. This principle is based on the idea that those seeking justice must come to court with "clean hands."

18. How does a plaintiff's intoxication affect their tort claim?

A plaintiff's intoxication can significantly impact their tort claim. It may be seen as contributory negligence, reducing or barring recovery depending on the jurisdiction. In some cases, it might affect the plaintiff's ability to perceive and avoid risks, potentially triggering an assumption of risk defense. However, if the defendant knowingly served alcohol to the plaintiff, there might be additional considerations under dram shop laws.

19. How does a plaintiff's failure to use safety equipment in a workplace injury case affect their claim?

A plaintiff's failure to use provided safety equipment in a workplace injury case can be seen as contributory negligence. It may reduce the amount of damages they can recover, as they failed to take reasonable precautions for their own safety. However, the employer may still be liable if they failed to properly train the employee or enforce safety rules. The exact impact varies by jurisdiction and the specific circumstances of the case.

20. What is the "firefighter's rule" and how does it limit certain plaintiffs' ability to sue?

The "firefighter's rule" is a legal doctrine that generally prevents firefighters and other first responders from suing for injuries sustained while responding to emergencies. The rationale is that these professionals assume certain risks as part of their job. However, there are exceptions, such as when the injury is caused by an unrelated act of negligence or intentional misconduct.

21. What is the "professional rescuer doctrine" and how does it limit certain plaintiffs' ability to sue?

The "professional rescuer doctrine," similar to the firefighter's rule, limits the ability of professional rescuers (like police officers or EMTs) to sue for injuries sustained while performing their duties. The rationale is that these professionals are paid to encounter certain risks. However, this doctrine typically doesn't bar claims for injuries caused by hidden dangers or extreme misconduct unrelated to the emergency response.

22. What is the "baseball rule" and how does it affect a spectator's ability to sue for injuries at sporting events?

The "baseball rule" is a legal doctrine that limits the liability of stadium owners and operators for injuries to spectators from foul balls or broken bats. It's based on the assumption that spectators accept the inherent risks of attending a game. Many jurisdictions have adopted some version of this rule, which can significantly limit a plaintiff's ability to recover for injuries at sporting events, unless they can prove the injury resulted from negligence beyond the inherent risks of the game.

23. What is the "sudden emergency doctrine" and how can it affect a plaintiff's negligence claim?

The "sudden emergency doctrine" states that a person confronted with a sudden and unexpected emergency not of their own making is not held to the same standard of conduct as someone acting under normal circumstances. This doctrine can affect a plaintiff's negligence claim if the defendant argues that their actions, while perhaps not ideal, were reasonable given the sudden emergency. However, it doesn't apply if the emergency was created by the defendant's own negligence.

24. How does a plaintiff's failure to mitigate damages differ from contributory negligence?

While both concepts can reduce a plaintiff's recovery, they differ in timing and purpose. Contributory negligence refers to the plaintiff's actions that contributed to the initial injury. Failure to mitigate damages refers to the plaintiff's actions (or inactions) after the injury that allowed damages to increase unnecessarily. Contributory negligence can sometimes bar recovery entirely, while failure to mitigate typically only reduces the recoverable amount.

25. What is the "open and obvious danger" doctrine and how does it affect a plaintiff's premises liability claim?

The "open and obvious danger" doctrine states that property owners are not liable for injuries caused by hazards that are open and obvious to a reasonable person. This doctrine can limit a plaintiff's ability to recover in premises liability cases if they were injured by a danger they should have noticed and avoided. However, some jurisdictions have modified or rejected this doctrine, considering it too harsh on plaintiffs.

26. What is the "learned intermediary doctrine" and how does it affect a plaintiff's product liability claim against a pharmaceutical company?

The "learned intermediary doctrine" is a legal principle in pharmaceutical product liability cases. It states that drug manufacturers fulfill their duty to warn by providing appropriate warnings to the prescribing physician, not the end user (patient). This doctrine can limit a plaintiff's ability to sue a pharmaceutical company directly for failure to warn, as the physician is considered the "learned intermediary" between the manufacturer and the patient.

27. What is the "mature minor doctrine" and how does it affect a minor plaintiff's ability to consent or assume risk?

The "mature minor doctrine" is a legal concept that allows minors who are sufficiently mature to make their own medical decisions, even if they haven't reached the age of majority. In tort law, this doctrine can affect whether a minor plaintiff is considered capable of giving informed consent or assuming certain risks. The application of this doctrine varies by jurisdiction and often depends on the minor's age, intelligence, and the nature of the decision or risk involved.

28. What is the "thin skull" or "eggshell skull" rule and how does it protect plaintiffs?

The "thin skull" or "eggshell skull" rule states that a defendant is liable for a plaintiff's injuries even if the plaintiff was unusually susceptible to injury due to a pre-existing condition. This rule protects plaintiffs by ensuring that defendants can't escape liability just because the plaintiff was more vulnerable than an average person. It emphasizes that defendants must take their victims as they find them.

29. What is mitigation of damages and why is it important for plaintiffs?

Mitigation of damages is a principle that requires the plaintiff to take reasonable steps to minimize the harm or loss they suffer after an injury. If a plaintiff fails to mitigate their damages, the amount they can recover may be reduced. This principle is based on the idea that plaintiffs should not be compensated for losses they could have reasonably avoided.

30. What is the concept of "coming to the nuisance" and how does it affect a plaintiff's nuisance claim?

"Coming to the nuisance" refers to situations where a plaintiff moves to an area where a nuisance already exists and then complains about it. While not an absolute defense, it can weaken a plaintiff's nuisance claim. Courts may be less sympathetic to plaintiffs who knowingly moved into an area with an existing nuisance, although this varies by jurisdiction and circumstances.

31. What is the "rescue doctrine" and how does it protect plaintiffs who are injured while attempting to help others?

The "rescue doctrine" is a legal principle that protects individuals who are injured while attempting to rescue someone in danger. It allows the rescuer to bring a claim against the person who created the dangerous situation, even if the rescuer voluntarily put themselves in harm's way. This doctrine encourages altruistic behavior by ensuring that good Samaritans are not left without recourse if they are injured.

32. What is the role of plaintiff credibility in tort cases?

Plaintiff credibility is crucial in tort cases. If a plaintiff is found to be dishonest or exaggerating their claims, it can severely damage their case. Credibility affects how judges and juries perceive the plaintiff's testimony about the incident, their injuries, and their damages. Loss of credibility can lead to reduced damages or even a complete loss of the case.

33. How does a plaintiff's pre-existing condition affect their tort claim?

A pre-existing condition can complicate a plaintiff's tort claim. While defendants are generally liable for aggravation of pre-existing conditions (often called the "eggshell skull" rule), plaintiffs may face challenges in proving the extent to which their current condition is due to the defendant's actions versus their pre-existing state. Courts typically require defendants to take plaintiffs as they find them, but determining appropriate compensation can be complex.

34. How does a plaintiff's criminal history affect their tort claim?

A plaintiff's criminal history generally shouldn't affect liability in a tort claim, as past crimes don't justify present injuries. However, it may impact credibility if relevant to the case. In some jurisdictions, evidence of past crimes may be admissible to impeach the plaintiff's testimony. Criminal history might also affect damage calculations, particularly for claims of lost future earnings or emotional distress.

35. How does a plaintiff's failure to preserve evidence (spoliation) affect their tort claim?

A plaintiff's failure to preserve relevant evidence, known as spoliation, can severely damage their case. Courts may impose sanctions ranging from adverse jury instructions to dismissal of the entire case. The severity often depends on whether the spoliation was intentional or negligent, the importance of the lost evidence, and the prejudice to the defendant. Plaintiffs have a duty to preserve evidence they know or should know is relevant to anticipated litigation.

36. What is the concept of "in pari delicto" and how does it apply to plaintiffs in tort cases?

"In pari delicto" is a legal doctrine meaning "in equal fault." It can bar recovery for a plaintiff who is equally or more at fault than the defendant in causing the harm. This principle is based on the idea that courts should not assist a wrongdoer in profiting from their own misconduct. It's often applied in cases involving illegal contracts or activities.

37. How does a plaintiff's comparative fault affect joint and several liability?

In jurisdictions with joint and several liability, multiple defendants can each be held fully responsible for the plaintiff's damages. However, when the plaintiff is also at fault, it complicates matters. Some jurisdictions reduce the total damages by the plaintiff's percentage of fault before applying joint and several liability. Others may limit joint and several liability to defendants whose fault exceeds the plaintiff's.

38. How does a plaintiff's assumption of risk differ in recreational activities versus workplace settings?

In recreational activities, courts often apply a broader interpretation of assumption of risk, as participants are seen as voluntarily engaging in activities with known risks for personal enjoyment. In workplace settings, assumption of risk is more limited because employees may have less choice about their work conditions. Employers have a duty to provide a safe workplace, and economic necessity may compel employees to accept certain risks.

39. How does a plaintiff's failure to read a contract affect their ability to claim they were misled?

Generally, a plaintiff's failure to read a contract doesn't absolve the other party of fraud or misrepresentation. However, it can weaken the plaintiff's case, especially if the misrepresentation is directly contradicted by clear contract terms. Courts often hold that individuals have a duty to read contracts before signing them. The effectiveness of this defense can depend on factors like the complexity of the contract, the relationship between the parties, and any special circumstances surrounding the signing.

40. How does a plaintiff's pre-injury release or waiver affect their ability to sue for negligence?

Pre-injury releases or waivers can significantly limit a plaintiff's ability to sue for negligence, but their effectiveness varies. Courts generally uphold waivers for ordinary negligence if they are clear, unambiguous, and not against public policy. However, waivers are typically not enforceable for gross negligence, recklessness, or intentional acts. The enforceability of waivers can also depend on the nature of the activity, the parties involved, and specific state laws.

41. How does a plaintiff's status as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee affect their premises liability claim?

A plaintiff's status on the property significantly affects the duty of care owed by the property owner. Traditionally, the highest duty is owed to invitees (those invited for the owner's benefit), a lesser duty to licensees (social guests), and the lowest duty to trespassers. However, many jurisdictions have moved away from these rigid categories, instead applying a general duty of reasonable care under the circumstances. The plaintiff's status can still be a factor in determining what's reasonable.

42. What is the "danger invites rescue" doctrine and how does it protect plaintiff rescuers?

The "danger invites rescue" doctrine allows a rescuer to sue the person who negligently created a dangerous situation that prompted the rescue attempt. This doctrine recognizes that rescue attempts are a foreseeable consequence of creating danger. It protects Good Samaritans by allowing them to seek compensation for injuries sustained during a rescue, even if they voluntarily put themselves in harm's way.

43. How does a plaintiff's failure to wear protective gear in a recreational activity affect their claim?

A plaintiff's failure to wear appropriate protective gear in a recreational activity can be seen as