Brief Series on Navigating Tort Law: Necessity as a Defense

Necessity as a defense in tort law refers to a situation where a defendant argues that their actions, which may have caused harm to the plaintiff, were necessary to prevent greater harm or danger. ?In other words, the defendant is claiming that they had no reasonable alternative but to commit the act that caused harm. There are two main types of necessity defenses:

?

• Public necessity: This defense applies when the defendant's actions were necessary to prevent significant harm or danger to the public or a large group of people. ?For example, breaking into a building to extinguish a fire or diverting floodwaters to prevent widespread damage.
• Private necessity: This defense applies when the defendant's actions were necessary to prevent harm to themselves or their property or to another individual or their property. ?However, the defendant may still be liable for any damages caused, but they may not be held liable for trespass or other torts to the extent that their actions were necessary.

?

It is important to note that the defense of necessity is not absolute and is subject to certain limitations. ?For instance, the harm caused by the defendant's actions must be less severe than the harm that would have occurred if the actions were not taken. ?Additionally, the defense may not apply if the defendant's actions were the result of their negligence or if there were reasonable alternatives available to them at the time. ?Courts will evaluate the circumstances surrounding the defendant's actions and determine whether the defense of necessity is applicable in a particular case.

?

Beyond the dichotomy of public and private necessity, the legal discourse has expanded to encompass a third paradigm. ?This novel dimension of necessity pertains to interventions undertaken in the interest of aiding another individual without explicit consent. ?It reflects situations wherein an individual, prompted by altruism or a sense of duty, intervenes to shield a vulnerable person from impending harm.?For instance, forcefully extricating an unconscious pedestrian from the path of an oncoming vehicle to prevent grievous injury or fatality.

In such instances, the intervener often assumes the role of an agent of necessity, acting as a conduit for the preservation of the assisted individual's well-being. ?This concept hinges upon the existence of a pre-established relationship between the parties involved, which furnishes the intervener with the requisite authority to act in the other's best interests. ?Fundamentally, the principle of necessity demands that actions undertaken in the name of urgency must be both imperative and reasonable. ?It mandates a judicious assessment of the prevailing circumstances, ensuring that interventions, though unconventional, are undertaken with the utmost prudence and integrity, safeguarding the interests of all parties involved.

Moreover, necessity's application extends beyond immediate crises to encompass scenarios involving individuals incapable of providing consent, such as those with mental disabilities. ?In such instances, medical professionals are entrusted with the solemn duty of acting in the patient's best interests, even in the absence of explicit authorization. ?While routine treatments may adhere to established protocols, more complex medical interventions necessitate a nuanced deliberation guided by the collective wisdom of the medical fraternity.

In essence, the doctrine of necessity serves as a moral compass, guiding actions undertaken in the face of exigency and uncertainty. ?Its application underscores the inherent complexity of ethical decision-making, balancing the imperatives of individual autonomy with the broader imperatives of societal well-being and justice.

Case Law

The case of Regina v. Dudley and Stephens 14 QBD 273 (Queen's Bench Division. 1884), often referred to as the Dudley and Stephens case, is a landmark legal case that took place in 1884. ?It involved a harrowing maritime incident where four men—Tom Dudley, Edwin Stephens, Edmund Brooks, and Richard Parker—found themselves stranded at sea in a lifeboat after their ship, the Mignonette, sank. ?As their ordeal prolonged, they faced dire circumstances, including starvation and dehydration. ?After days without rescue, the situation became increasingly desperate. ?In a tragic turn of events, the men decided to kill and consume the cabin boy, Richard Parker, in order to sustain themselves. ?Upon being rescued, Dudley and Stephens were charged with murder. ?The case centered on the fundamental question of whether the killing of Parker constituted murder or if it could be justified under the principle of necessity. ?During the trial, the defendants argued that extreme circumstances necessitated their actions. ?They claimed that their survival was contingent upon consuming Parker's flesh, as there were no other sources of sustenance available in the lifeboat. ?The court ultimately rejected the defense of necessity. ?Dudley and Stephens were found guilty of murder and sentenced to death. ?The ruling underscored the principle that the sanctity of human life outweighed any claims of necessity, even in the face of dire circumstances. ?The case remains significant in legal jurisprudence as it grapples with profound ethical dilemmas surrounding survival, individual autonomy, and the limits of justifiable action in extreme situations. ?It serves as a poignant reminder of the complexities inherent in reconciling legal principles with moral imperatives, particularly in contexts of life-threatening adversity.

?

In the legal landmark case of F v West Berkshire Health Authority (1989) 2, All ER 5 centered on a 36-year-old woman whose cognitive abilities were akin to those of a minor. ?Permanently residing in a mental hospital under constant medical supervision, the woman's mother petitioned the court for a declaration regarding the lawfulness of sterilizing her daughter, notwithstanding her inability to provide consent due to her mental capacity. ?The impetus for the application stemmed from concerns among hospital staff and the mother regarding the potential for the daughter to conceive, given her romantic involvement with another patient in the facility. ?They apprehended grave repercussions should the daughter undergo pregnancy and childbirth. ?The case raised several pivotal questions, including the legality of a medical practitioner performing such a procedure on a patient lacking the mental capacity to consent, the jurisdiction of the court to issue such a declaration, and the necessity of seeking judicial validation prior to the operation. ?The court ruled in favor of the operation, deeming it lawful in the best interests of the daughter. ?The determination of the daughter's best interests was based on prevailing medical norms and expert opinions regarding the appropriate course of treatment at the time of the procedure. Furthermore, the court clarified that while a doctor does not need to obtain a formal declaration of legality prior to conducting sterilization in similar circumstances, medical practitioners should seek such validation as a matter of practice. ?The judiciary underscored the concept of necessity within the framework of tort law. ?Within this case's narrative, the courts delineated three distinctive manifestations of necessity, each bearing significance in determining lawful actions within specific contexts.

In conclusion, to qualify under the principle of necessity, certain fundamental criteria must be met. ?Firstly, there must be a demonstrable necessity to act, particularly in situations where communication with the assisted party is impracticable or impossible. ?Secondly, the action undertaken must align with the standards of reasonableness that a prudent individual would exercise under similar circumstances. ?Crucially, the intervention must prioritize the well-being and best interests of the assisted individual above all else. Necessity finds application across a spectrum of contexts, ranging from emergencies to prolonged states of affairs or cases involving mentally disordered individuals unable to provide consent. ?In such scenarios, medical professionals often confront ethical quandaries regarding treatment decisions.

?

The application of the principle of necessity typically presents minimal challenges in routine treatments for mentally disordered persons. However, in cases involving more invasive or contentious treatments, the line between necessity and ethical considerations becomes blurred. Nonetheless, medical practitioners are duty-bound to adhere to a responsible and competent body of professional opinion, ensuring that their actions remain guided by the imperative of safeguarding the welfare and best interests of the assisted individual. In essence, the principle of necessity serves as a guiding framework for navigating complex ethical and legal dilemmas, striking a delicate balance between individual autonomy, moral imperatives, and the overarching imperative of promoting human welfare and justice.

Further Readings on this topic can be found on:

• What is Tort
• Negligence and Limitations of Liability in Construction: The Bank of East Asia Ltd v. Tsien Wui Marble Factory Ltd.
• Assessing Assignability
• Brief Series on Navigating Tort Law: Analyzing Volenti Non-Fit Injuria

Thank you for your attention.

Please subscribe, comment, and contribute. Let's build stronger contractual foundations together!

#Insurances #InsuranceSolutions #InsuranceSolutionsProvider #InsuranceProtection #FinancialProtection #RiskManagement #InsurancePlanning #ContractLaw #InsuranceMatters #LegalAgreements #RiskManagement #InsuranceContracts #ContractProvisions #InsureYourAssets #PolicyCoverage #ContractClarity #ConstructionInsurance #BusinessProtection #InsurancePolicy #LiabilityCoverage #Insurance101 #ClaimsManagement #ContractReview #ContractCompliance #InsuranceInsights #ContractualObligations #CoveragePlanning #ConstructionLaw #ConstructionLegal #BuildLaw #ConstructionRegulations #LegalConstruction #ConstructionNews #ContractorsMagazine #BuildingCodes #ConstructionLitigation #LegalInsights #ConstructionIndustry #ArchitecturalLaw#ConstructionDisputes #ConstructionUpdates #ContractorLegal #BuildingLawyers #ConstructionStandards #LegalConstructionAdvice #ConstructionMagazine #ContractorRights #ConstructionCompliance #LawAndBuild #ConstructionRisk #ConstructionAdvocacy #BuildIndustryLaw #ICC #Ciarb #UCLAN #Arbitration #CSF #neglignece #limitation #liability #daw2023 #diac #tort #negligence #damages #uclan #GAR