This article is written by Shruti Somya, a first-year student pursuing BBA. LLB. from Symbiosis Law School, Noida. This article deals with the Inevitable Accident.

Introduction 

The Law of tort has evolved from its existence. The Law of tort revolves around damages which means punishments in torts are usually in the form of liquidated damages. One can counterclaim compensation based on certain principles. These counterclaims are known as defenses. There are many defenses in the law of tort. Some of these are negligence, nuisance, inevitable accidents, etc. This article deals with the topic of an inevitable accident.

The very first thought that comes to mind after listening to the term “inevitable accident” is a road accident. But in law, an inevitable accident is a general defense in the law of tort. The inevitable accident which is also known as unavoidable accident says that a person cannot be held liable for an accident which was not foreseeable despite all care and caution taken from his side. Law states that a high degree of precaution is not required, reasonable care is sufficient. 

Example: If [A] was driving a car and he was all in his senses and took all due care, but suddenly due to mechanical part failure his car loses his balance and hits a passer-by. In this case, the driver would not be liable as he took all precautions from his side. The accident was unavoidable.  

Act of God can also be sometimes classed in inevitable accidents. 

Example: A was driving a car with all the reasonable care from his part. Suddenly due to heavy rain and storm the road collapsed and A’s car hit many pedestrians. Here also the driver would not be liable. It was completely out of his hand. 

Sir Frederick Pollock has defined an inevitable accident as, “not avoidable by any such precautions as a reasonable man, doing such an act then there could be expected to take.”

For the defendant to use the defense of inevitable accident, it is necessary to show two things:

1. There was no intention on the part of the defendant.
2. And, the collision could not have been avoided with reasonable care.

The defendant can clearly deny any responsibility but is more difficult to satisfy. The most prominent defense used by the defendant is that there was an unanticipated blackout just before the crash. In that case, the defendant has to prove that there was a sudden medical illness. 

There is an interesting case on the defense of the inevitable accident of LIMMASOL. 

The defendant was driving a car on the road and suddenly he got a cardiac arrest. Due to this sudden arrest, he hit a passer-by and on-looker. The matter went to the court and the defendant pleaded the defense of inevitable accident. To support his side, he even presented the court with his medical history of cardiac arrest. But the judge gave the rule against the defendant. The honorable judge stated that the defendant could not prove that the arrest was sudden at the time of the accident which was a necessary element for the plea of inevitable accident.  

Secondly, the defendant was well known for his health condition of cardiac arrest. He should have not taken the risk of driving. Therefore, the accident was not unforeseeable and could have been avoided. By driving with his serious illness, therefore, he should be held liable for the accident. 

In the case of Hidasi v. Hidasi, the defense of an inevitable accident was accepted by the court.

In this case, the plaintiff is the wife and the defendant is the husband. Both husband and wife were traveling along a mountain road. The defendant was well aware of the slippery road so took all the precautions. He was traveling below 100kmph. But somehow the car lost the balance. The defendant pulled the emergency brakes which couldn’t stop the car and the car hit the near barrier, injuring the plaintiff. 

The plaintiff sued the husband stating that he was rashly driving and didn’t take the precautionary measures. The defendant took the pleading of an inevitable accident. The court accepted the defense stating that the car lost the control because of the mechanical failure which was totally out of the scope of the defendant.

Case Analysis 

A. Krishna Patra vs Odisha State Electricity Board 

Facts of the case –  A. Krishna Patra vs Odisha State Electricity Board 2 (1998) ACC 367, 1998 ACJ 155, AIR 997 ORI 109 

FACTS: A couple was walking on the streets of Odisha when the wife met with a dangerous accident. The wife came into contact with a live conductor who was lying on the road naked. The condition was critical. She was rushed to the hospital where she died. The petitioner, her husband, claimed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 from the Odisha state electricity board.  The petitioner stated that the mishap was exclusively due to negligence. Proper care and caution were not taken on the part of the electricity board; hence the board should be held liable for the compensation. The electricity board argued that the incident was an inevitable accident. The incident was out of their control. Soon after an electrical inspector was appointed to examine the status of the conductor and the reason for its fall. Surprisingly, the electrical inspector showed a different picture of the case. The live conductor had outlived its age. It’s already been more than 30 years and was very weak. The reason for the fall was its aging and has become mechanically unsound. The police investigation report also stated that the death of the women was due to electrification.  

ISSUES:

1) Was the whole incident an inevitable accident? 

2) Does the electricity board owe any duty of care toward the woman? 

3) Should the electricity board be held liable for the death of the woman? 

 RULE:

 The defendant in the case: Odisha state electricity board 

 The plaintiff in the case: A. Krishna Patra 

This case involves the concept of inevitable accidents and negligence. ” Negligence is the breach of duty caused by the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily, regulate the conduct of human affairs would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Actionable negligence consists in the neglect of the use of ordinary care or skill towards a person to whom the defendant owes the duty of observing ordinary care and skill.

The essential element of inevitable accident:

1) The accident should have been unforeseeable.

2) The event was out of scope and had no means to avoid it.

3) Reasonable care and caution should be taken. 

Essential elements of negligence:

1) The defendant must own a duty of care to the plaintiff. 

2) There must be legal damage sustained by the plaintiff. 

3) There must be a breach of duty on the part of the defendant.  

ANALYSIS:

As we can gather from the fact that the live conductor was naked and lying on the crowded street. It is very obvious that in such a crowded place anyone can come in contact with the conductor which is very dangerous for human life. Electricity board claiming that the whole incident was an inevitable accident. All proper due care was taken and the accident was out of scope. But as we can see from the report of the electrical inspector the state of the conductor was not great. It was overused and already aged.  There is a clear indication of negligence on the part of the electricity board. Moreover, an endeavor which is indulged in a perilous or inalienably risky industry which represents a potential danger to the wellbeing and security of the people working there and living in the encompassing territories, owe a duty to make sure that no mischief results to anybody because of unsafe or innately hazardous nature of the action.  

Conclusion of the case 

After analyzing the fact, it can be concluded that the incident was not an inevitable accident. Proper due care was not taken. The electricity board has not examined the conductor from time to time. This accident could have been avoided by regular inspection of the conductors and the wires. We can see that all the elements necessary to prove the negligence is present. Electricity boards should be held liable for the death of women. But the electricity board pleaded the defense of inevitable accident which was rejected by the court and compensation was awarded for Rs. 50,000 to the defendant. 

ACCIDENT, TRESPASS, BURDEN OF PROOF: A COMPARATIVE STUDY; IRISH JURIST, NEW SERIES, VOL. 11, NO. 1, pp. 88-101 

The object of this article is to examine the methodologies adopted by different Commonwealth regions on the subject of mental aspect and the burden of proof in practice. The author has explained the concept of the burden of proof in inevitable accidents and trespass with various case laws of various jurisdictions.

One thing that the article emphasizes is the burden of proof.

An important and the oldest case of an accident- Homes vs Mather, where it was first raised about the burden of proof. It was decided in the case that the burden of proof should be on the plaintiff. 

Another case followed by Homes vs Mather, Powell vs Stanley a landmark case wherein the onus of proof should be on the defendant. He would have to prove the circumstances were beyond his influence.

The next author has given a reference to the Canadian jurisdiction. Canada does have a mixed case bag. Their core principle is that the burden of proof of trespass is on the defendant, action for negligence, the complainant definitely has a responsibility. Cook vs Lewis is famous and the only case that was decided by the supreme court of Canada. 

The next case he referred to is Miska vs Sivec, an interesting case in the Ontario court of appeal. In this case, the defendant shot on the plaintiff’s leg, but in court, he stated that the act was in the course of self-defense. If the defendant would persuade the jury, it was held that the burden of proof will shift from defendant to plaintiff. 

This was followed by the case of Northern Irish, McKnight vs Mclaughlin, they supported the proposition that in action for trespass, the activity must be explicitly argued in safeguard. 

Author, after critically examining cases from various commonwealth countries and analyzing them, he reached some conclusion. 

Following are the conclusions derived:

1. From a policy point of view, there is little justification for putting the onus of proof on the defendant.
2. Whichever case has appeared, for the burden of proof, they cannot be considered for analyzing judicial reasoning.
3. There cannot be a standard burden of proof policy. It may differ from case to case.

Conclusion 

Inevitable is not only a helpful defense for the drivers but also in many other cases. As in the case of Brown vs Kendall where the defendant’s and the plaintiff’s dog started fighting and in order to separate them, the defendant beats the plaintiff. Here the defendant can plead the defense of inevitable accident as there was no intention to harm him. The defendant only has to prove that there could not have been any alteration in his act to avoid the incident and the total incident was not intentional. However, if the defendant could not prove his act and the court finds that the act could have been avoided then the defense will not be available. 

References

1. Sir Frederick Pollock, The Law of Tort: a treatise on the principle of obligations arising from civil wrongs in the common laws, (4th edition), [1886] 
2. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts, 27th Edition, pp. 457 
3. ACCIDENT, TRESPASS, BURDEN OF PROOF: A COMPARATIVE STUDY; IRISH JURIST, NEW SERIES, VOL. 11, NO. 1, pp. 88-101 
4. https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/inevitable-accident-doctrine/
5. https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=inevitable%20accident
6. https://www.preszlerlawbc.com/car-accident/what-is-an-inevitable-accident/

---

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join: