Skip to content

CS Executive · Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · Law of Torts

A fire broke out in Meena's house and was spreading towards neighbouring buildings. To stop it, the municipal fire officer, acting in good faith, ordered Suresh's vacant adjacent shed demolished, which halted the fire. Suresh sues for trespass and damage. The best defence is:

The best defence is necessity. The demolition was a reasonable, good-faith act to avert a much greater harm to many neighbouring properties, so the damage to Suresh's shed is justified. Suresh never consented, and no negligence or natural force is involved.

  1. ANecessity, as the act was done to prevent a greater harm to the communityCorrect
  2. BVolenti non fit injuria, as Suresh impliedly consented
  3. CContributory negligence of Suresh
  4. DAct of God

Explanation

Necessity justifies a reasonable act done in good faith to prevent a greater harm, even if it damages another's property. Suresh gave no consent, so volenti fails. He was not negligent, and the fire was not an act of God.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Law of Torts shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Law of TortsFree diagnostic mock

More Law of Torts questions