The concept of necessity is an important defense in tort law that allows individuals to justify their actions when they have caused harm to another person or their property. This defense allows individuals to argue that the harm they caused was necessary to prevent a greater harm from occurring, and it can be a powerful tool in cases where the defendant’s actions were taken with the best of intentions.

To understand the defense of necessity, it is helpful to first consider the principles of tort law that it operates within. Tort law is a branch of civil law that deals with legal disputes in which one party has caused harm to another. It is based on the idea that individuals have a legal duty to act with care and consideration towards others, and that they are responsible for any harm they cause as a result of their actions or inactions.

In general, tort law operates on the principle of fault, which means that an individual is only liable for damages if they are found to be at fault for the harm that was caused. However, there are certain situations in which fault may not be an issue, and the defense of necessity can be used to justify the defendant’s actions.

One of the key requirements for the defense of necessity to be successful is that the defendant must be able to show that they had no reasonable alternative to the action that caused the harm. This means that the defendant must be able to show that the harm they caused was the only way to prevent a greater harm from occurring.

For example, if a person is sued for trespassing on another person’s property in order to put out a fire that was threatening to spread and cause more damage, they may be able to use the defense of necessity to argue that their actions were justified because they were necessary to prevent a greater harm from occurring. In this case, the defendant could argue that they had no other way to put out the fire and that their actions were necessary to prevent the fire from spreading and causing even more damage.

In addition to showing that they had no reasonable alternative, the defendant must also be able to show that the harm they caused was not disproportionate to the harm they were attempting to prevent. This means that the defendant must be able to show that the harm they caused was not greater than the harm they were trying to prevent.

For example, if a person is sued for damaging another person’s property in order to prevent a flood from occurring, they may be able to use the defense of necessity to argue that their actions were justified. However, they would need to show that the damage they caused was not disproportionate to the harm that would have been caused by the flood.

Finally, it is important to note that the defense of necessity is only available if the harm that was caused was not intentional. This means that the defendant must be able to show that they did not act with the intention of causing harm, but rather that they were simply trying to prevent a greater harm from occurring.

There have been several landmark judgments involving the defense of necessity in tort law. Some examples include:

1. In the case of R v Dudley and Stephens (1884), two men were charged with murder after they killed and ate a cabin boy while stranded on a lifeboat in the Atlantic Ocean. They argued that they were justified in their actions because they had no other way to survive and that their actions were necessary to prevent their own deaths. The court rejected this defense and found them guilty of murder, stating that “necessity may excuse what would otherwise be a crime, but it cannot justify the commission of what is in itself a crime.”
2. In the case of Re A (Conjoined Twins) (2000), a court was asked to decide whether it was necessary to surgically separate conjoined twins in order to save the life of one of the twins. The court ruled that it was necessary to perform the surgery, stating that “the fundamental principle is that the balance of necessity must be struck in favor of saving life.”
3. In the case of R v Martin (2005), a man was charged with criminal damage after he broke into a shop in order to steal food to feed his starving family. The court ruled that the defendant’s actions were justified under the defense of necessity, stating that “in the present case, the defendant had no choice but to steal food in order to feed his family and, therefore, he had a defense of necessity.”

These cases demonstrate the complexities and nuances of the defense of necessity in tort law, and highlight the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case when determining whether the defense is applicable.

In summary, the defense of necessity is an important concept in tort law that allows individuals to justify their actions when they have caused harm to another person or their property. In order for the defense to be successful, the defendant must be able to show that they had no reasonable alternative to the action that caused the harm, that the harm they caused was not disproportionate to the harm they were attempting to prevent, and that the harm they caused was not intentional. While the defense of necessity can be a complex and nuanced area of tort law, it is an important tool that can help individuals defend themselves in cases where they are being sued for causing harm to others.