An introduction to law of torts

AN INTRODUCTION
TO
LAW OF TORTS
Sandeep Kulshrestha
Amity Law School
Amity University Madhya Pradesh

Syllabus
 Module I: Introduction toTort
 Nature and Definition of Torts; Tort distinguished from
Contract, Quasi-Contract, Crime:Conditions of liability
including damnum sine injuria, injuria sine damnum;
Remoteness of damages; Maxims: Ubijus ibi remedium, Res
ipsa loquitor, etc.; Justification in Tort - Volenti non-fit
Injuria, Necessity, Plaintiff’s default, Act of God, Inevitable
accidents, Private defences, Judicial and Quasi – Judicial
Acts, Parental and quasi-parental authority.

Syllabus
 Module II: Actions inTort
 Assault, Battery, False Imprisonment, Malicious
Prosecution; Defamation-Libel, Slander including
defenses in an action for defamation. ; Vicarious
Liability; Liability of State; Doctrine of Sovereign
Immunity.

Syllabus
 Module III: Negligence
 Negligence including contributory negligence and
other defenses: Absolute liability/Strict liability, Rules
in Ryland v. Fletcher ; Principles for the application of
the rule and defenses; Enterprises engaged in
hazardous activities – M.C. Mehta v. Union of India ;
Nuisance;Trespass.

Syllabus
 Module IV: Consumer Protection
 The concept of a Consumer and Consumer Dispute,
definition of ‘consumer’ under the consumer Protection
Act, 1986: The Aims and Objectives of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986. Shift from Caveat Emptor to Caveat
Venditor, Consumer Protection Councils under the
Consumer Protection Act 1986. Redressal mechanism
under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; The District
Forum, The State Commission; The National Commission.
Why a consumer may institute proceedings.

Syllabus
 ModuleV: MotorVehicles - I
 Motor Vehicles Claims and compensation: Relevant
provisions of the relating Motor Vehicles Act relating
to the liability and assessment of compensation:
Liability without fault in certain cases : voidance of
contracts restrictive of liability: Special provisions and
scheme of compensation in case of hit and run motor
accidents:

Syllabus
 ModuleV: MotorVehicles - II
 offences penalties and procedure: Insurance of
Motor Vehicles against third party risks(Sec. 145 –
152): Claims tribunals: Sec. 165-176: Special
provisions as to payment of compensation on
structured formula basis: Claims on non
structured basis: Method of calculating
compensation evolved by the courts( study with
reference to relevant judgments): Defences:
Changing parameters of negligence and burden
of proof

WHAT IS A TORT?
• A tort is a civil wrong
• That (wrong) is based a breach of
a duty imposed by law
• Which (breach) gives rise to a
(personal) civil right of action for
for a remedy not exclusive to
another area of law

Tort is a French word for “wrong.”
The Tort is of French origin. The root is
‘Tortum’ in Latin which means ‘twist’. It
implies a conduct which is ‘tortious’ , or,
twisted.. The equivalent word in English is
“Wrong”. In Roman it is “delict” and in
Sanskrit it is “Jimha” which means
‘crooked’.

How word “Tort” came to India
 It came to India through England. In 1065
England was conquered by Normans who were
the French speaking people of Normandy, a
region of France. After Norman conquest,
French became the spoken language in the
Courts in England, and thus many technical
terms in English law owe their origin to French,
and ‘Tort’ is one of them.

TORT LAW IS BASED ON THE
IDEA THAT EVERYONE IN OUR
SOCIETY HAS CERTAIN RIGHTS
• Along With Having Certain Rights,
Everyone Has The Duty to Respect the
Rights of Others.
• The Purpose of Tort Law is to Enforce
Those Rights and Duties

What Is A Tort???
A tort is a private
wrong committed by
one person against

Definition of a Tort
Black’s Law Dictionary defines a tort as
1. A civil wrong for which a remedy may be
obtained, usually in the form of damages…
2. The branch of law dealing with such wrongs.
A far less formal definition of a tort is
1. All the crazy stuff that you can possibly
imagine happening to a person.

SALMOND’s Definition
 Tort is a civil wrong for which the
remedy is a common law action for un-
liquidated damages, and which is NOT
exclusively the breach of a contract, or,
the breach of a trust, or, other merely
equitable obligation

WINFIELD’s Definition
 ‘Tortious liability’ arises from the
breach of duty primarily fixed by law.
This duty is towards persons generally
and its breach is redressible by an
action for unliquidated damages.

FRASER’s Definition
Tort is an infringement of a right in rem of
a private individual giving a right of
compensation at the suit of the injured
party.

POLLOCK’s Definition
‘Tort’ is an act or omission (not merely the breach of a
duty arising out of a personal relation, or undertaken by
contract) which is related to a harm suffered by a
determinate person, giving rise to a civil remedy which
is not an action of contract.
‘The law of tort’s in civil wrongs is a collective name for
the rules governing many species of liability which,
although their subject matter is wide and varied have
certain broad features in common, are enforced by the
same kind of legal processes that are subject to similar
exceptions.

Clerk & Lindsell’s Definition
A tort may be described as wrong
independent of contract, for which the
appropriate remedy is common law action

Limitation Act 1963
Sec 2 (m) of the Limitation Act 1963 defines
“Tort means a civil wrong which is not
exclusively a breach of contract or trust.”
This is quite similar to Salmond’s definition.

ANALYSIS OF WINFIELD’S
DEFINITION OF TORT
• Duty primarily fixed by law:
 duty is always fixed by law itself and NOT by any agreement between
parties.
 Parties cannot create a tortious liability through a contract, nor, can
they ‘negate’ a tortious liability through a contract.
 liability arises from the breach of such duties fixed by law
 Any person who commits such a breach can be proceeded against in a
court of law by the person whose rights are breached
 For Example I am under a legal duty not to trespass on my
neighbour’s property. This is a duty primarily fixed by law on me.
Similarly, by the same principle my neighbour cannot trespass into
my property..

Duty is towards persons generally:
 Here, the word ‘generally’ implies that applies to all. For
example I am duty bound not to trespass into my
neighbours’ land. Similarly he is also duty bound not to
trespass into my land. Likewise, all our other neighbours and
also others who are not our neighbours are bound by the
same law not to trespass into each other’s lands. In other
words, it is common, or, not unusual for the parties in a ‘tort
action’ to know each other. This character distinguishes tort
from contract, bailment and quasi-contract.
DEFINITION OF TORT

DEFINITION OF TORT
Tort is redressible by action for unliquidated damages:
 Damages is the most important remedy for a tort. After the
commission of the wrong, it is not possible to undo the harm
which has already been caused but it is the monetary
compensation which can be awarded to the injured party.
 Unliquidated damages means when the compensation has not
been determined previously or agreed by the parties but it is left
to the direction of the court.
 These are the unliquidated damages which distinguish tort from
breach of contract or breach of trust in which damages may be
liquidated that is, previously determined or agreed to by the
parties.

Criticism of Salmond’s definition
The definition given by Salmond fails to underline the
essential characteristics of tortious acts. According to
this definition tort is a wrong but it does not explain
what is wrong and what kinds of wrong explaining jural
features of tort. Moreover the expression "civil wrong"
itself requires explanation. Besides, Salmond’s
definition also suffers from all the shortcomings of
Winfield’s definition. While this definition is more
informative, this is still far from perfect.

CONSTITUENTS OF TORT
 Wrongful act,
 Legal Damage
 Legal remedy

WRONGFUL ACT-I
 A person must have committed a wrongful act.
 This refers to an act of commission or omission
 This is ‘wrongful’ because, there must have been a
breach of duty which has been fixed by law itself.
 If a person does not observe that duty or breaks it
either intentionally or unintentionally
 In tort, “intention”, usually has no role, except in cases
like malicious prosecution.
 Person must have done some legal wrong violates the
legal right of another to be liable for a tort

WRONGFUL ACT-II
 More often than not, ‘unintentional acts of wrong
arise out of acts of ‘negligence’.
 In legal sense, ‘negligence’ denotes, “a legal duty
owed and neglected”.
 The wrongful act must be recognized by law.
 If there is a mere moral or social wrong, there cannot
be a liability for the same.

 where legal duty to perform is involved and the
same is not performed it would amount to wrongful
act.
 Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Subhagwanti [
AIR 1966 SC 1750] where the Municipal Corporation,
having ownership and control of a clock tower in the heart of
the city, does not keep it in proper repairs and the failure to do
of the same results in the death of number of persons, the
Corporation would be liable for its omission to take care
WRONGFUL ACT-III

LEGAL DAMAGE
 There must be violation of a legal right of a person and, if
it is not, there can be no action under law of torts.
 Legal Rights are conferred by the State on all its citizens.
 There are two types of Legal rights, viz, public rights and
Private rights.
 Public rights are those which belong in common to all
members of the state like Public peace, Public safety etc
subject of Criminal Law,
 Private rights are vested in persons in general by virtue of
law. It can be further divided into two types, namely,.

Kinds of Legal Rights
i. Right in Personum is a right which one person
can enforce on another specific person.
Example : Rights of parties to a Contract
ii. Right in rem is a private right that a person is
entitled to against the society as a whole, and
is not limited to against any specific person.
Example: Right to property, Right to
reputation, Right to etc.

Rights and Duties
 Wherever, there is a legal right bestowed by the law
on any person, there are corresponding legal duties
mandated on others by the very same law not to
violate the rights.
 So wherever there is an infringement of a private
legal right, there arises a possibility of a damage,
which includes not only monetary loss, but also loss
due to and arising from physical injury, health,
nervous shock, loss of comfort, and loss to property.

Rights and Duties
 In Ashby v White (1703) 2 Ld. Raym. 938 a
returning officer was held liable in damages for
wrongfully refusing to take the plaintiff’s vote
at an election.
 So wherever there is an infringement of a
private legal right, there arises a possibility of
a damage. This is best explained by the latin
maxim “Ubi jus ibi remedium”, meaning -
Where there is a damage, there must be a
remedy..

Ubi jus ibi remedium
 The law of torts is said to be a development of the
maxim ubi jus ibi remedium
 Jus signifies the ‘legal authority to do or to
demand something’
 remedium may be defined to be the right of
action
 If a man has a right, “he must of necessity have a
means to vindicate and maintain it

injuria sine damno
 In cases of the infringement of an absolute private right
without any actual loss or damage, the person whose
right is infringed has a cause of action. Every person has
an absolute right to his property, to the immunity of his
person, and to his liberty, and an infringement of this
right is actionable per se. In India, the same principles
have been followed. The Privy Council has observed that
“there may be, where a right is interfered with, injuria
sine damno sufficient to found an action: but no action
can be maintained where there is neither damnum nor
injuria.

injuria sine damno
 In Ashby vWhite (1703) 2 Ld. Raym. 938 a
returning officer was held liable in damages for
wrongfully refusing to take the plaintiff’s vote at
an election.
 Though there was no injury to Plaintiff but legal
injury was there

Damnum Sine Injuria
 Simply translated, the term would mean “injury with no
damages.”
 Damnum sine injuria refers to a legal situation in which
plaintiff’s right is not respected by another but where the
breach of plaintiff’s right does not cause damage.
 A finding of damnum sine injuria can be the basis for a finding
of nominal damages.
 Thus in cases of damnum sine injuria the injury is de minimis,
i.e. too small to be remedied practically at the law. In such
cases the plaintiff will have a satisfaction remedy of nominal
damages - which are also called symbolic damages.

Different Kinds Of Damages
 Contemptuous damages or derisory damages
 Nominal Damages
 Ordinary damages or Compensatory damages
 Aggravated Damages
 Exemplary damages or Punitive Damages

Contemptuous damages or
derisory damages
These damages are awarded when the
plaintiff moves the court on a technical legal
ground without moral justification. The courts
express their disapproval of such conduct by
awarding a very low damages, of say, Rs. 1/=,
or, even in paise

Nominal Damages
The damages awarded in cases where there is
injury without a loss, say the act of
trespassing. Here a token amount, or, nominal
amount is awarded. In Ashby v White £5 was
awarded as damages, which is nominal.
Usually in all cases of Injuria sine damnun
nominal damages are awarded.

Ordinary damages or
Compensatory damages
 When damages are awarded to the extent of losses
suffered by plaintiff, as a monetary compensation,
these are called ordinary, or, compensatory
damages.
 While arriving at the amount of compensation,
courts will regard not only the pecuniary losses
suffered, but also, the social disadvantage resulting
from the wrong, mental pain and suffering, etc.,

Aggravated Damages
The court at its discretion, tends to increase the
compensation when it finds the manner of
commission of tort when it is intentional, and
with malice. Such increased compensation is
called aggravated damages. However, this is not
to be confused with exemplary damages

Exemplary damages or Punitive
Damages
Sometimes, the gravity of offence may be so severe,
that the court may choose to set out an example to
others as a warning. In such cases the damages
awarded are disproportionately high . These are called
exemplary damages, since, the aim here is not just to
compensate the victim, but to create a ‘deterrent’ for
future offenders.
 In Bhim Sigh v State of J&K, AIR 1986 SC 494, the
Supreme Court awarded a damage of Rs 50,000/= as
exemplary damages

Besides monetary compensation
there are other remedies such
as self-help, injunction and
specific restitution are also
available.

Self-help
Self-help is a remedy which the injured party
himself can avail without going to a court of law. It
does not apply to all cases, and can be of use in
some specific cases such as trespass. If for
example a person finds any undesirable stranger
in his premises he is entitled to drive him outside
his boundary without resorting to undue or
disproportionate force.

Injunction
Injunction is an order of the court
restraining
a) the commission, or continuance of a
wrongful act, or,
b) continuance of a wrongful omission.
Typical examples are those associated
with nuisance.

Specific Restitution of
property
Specific Restitution of property are considered
by the court as an alternate remedy in cases
where plaintiff is dispossessed of his land due
to a wrongful act by the defendant

Injuria sine Damnum
 The latin word ‘injuria’ refers to not just a
physical injury, but an infringement, or, a
violation of a legal right, or invasion of individual
interests. The latin word ‘damnum’ refers to
losses.

Injuria sine Damnum
In cases of injuria sine damno, i.e., the
infringement of an absolute private right without
any actual loss or damage, the person whose right
is infringed has a cause of action. Every person has
an absolute right to his property, to the immunity
of his person, and to his liberty, and an
infringement of this right is actionable per se. In
India, the same principles have been followed

Injuria sine Damnum
 The Privy Council has observed that “there
may be, where a right is interfered with,
injuria sine damno sufficient to found an
action: but no action can be maintained
where there is neither damnum nor injuria.

Injuria sine Damnum
In the leading case of Ashby v. White, (1703) 2 Lord
Raym 938, the defendant, a returning officer,
wrongfully refused to register a duly tendered vote of
the plaintiff, a legally qualified voter, at a
parliamentary election and the candidate for whom
the vote was tendered was elected, and no loss was
suffered by the rejection of the vote, nevertheless it
was held that an action lay. In this case the returning
officer has acted maliciously.

Injuria sine Damnum
Bhim Singh vs State of J K, AIR 1986 SCC 494 -
Plaintiff was an MLA and was wrongfully arrested
while going to assembly session. He was not
produced before a magistrate within the requisite
period. It was held that this was the violation of
his fundamental rights. Even though he was
released later, he was awarded Rs. 50,000/= as
exemplary damages by Supreme Court.

Injuria sine Damnum
Municipal Board of Agra v Ashrafi Lal (1921) 44
ALL 202. The defendant’s name was wrongly
omitted from the electoral roll and he was deprived
of his right to vote. The lower court ruled in favour
of defendant which was affirmed by High Court
holding that the act of omission / refusal of
returning officer is an infringement of defendant’s
legal right to vote for which action lies against the
person depriving him his right

Damnum sine Injuria
In cases of damnum sine injuria, i.e., actual and
substantial loss without infringement of any legal
right, no action lies. Mere loss in money or money’s
worth does not of itself constitute a tort. The most
terrible harm may be inflicted by one man on another
without legal redress being obtainable. There are
many acts which, though harmful, are wrongful and
give no right of action. “ Damnum” may be absque
injuria

Damnum sine Injuria
 In Gloucester v Grammar School [1441 YB11 Henry
IV, 47], defendant set up a rival school to that of
plaintiff with the result, the plaintiff was forced to
reduce tuition fees substantially as the boys were
moving out. Plaintiff filed to claim damages.
 HELD that plaintiff had no cause of action on the
ground that “bona fide” competition can afford no
ground for action. This is a case of ‘damnun sine
injuria

Damnum sine Injuria
In Quinn v. Leatham, [1901] AC 495, defendant
set up a rival school next door to the plaintiff’s
and boys from the plaintiff’s school flocked to
defendant’s school. In this case, it was held that
no action could be maintained. Competition is no
ground of action whatever damage it may cause,
provided nobody’s legal rights are infringed

 In Mayor of Bradford v Pickles (1895) AC 597, When
Bradford Corporation refused t buy his land, the
defendant got annoyed and sank a shaft in his own land .
This diminished and discoloured the underground water
flowing into plaintiff’s land, who then sued the
defendant on the ground that his conduct was unlawful
and dictated my malice.
 HELD that the defendant was within his legal rights, and
the act though malicious, done in his own land was not
actionable
Damnum sine Injuria

Damnum sine Injuria
 In Mogul Steamship Co. v McGregor, Gow & Co. (1889) 28 ABD
598. A,B,C & D all ship owners combined together to drive F, a
rival ship owner out of trade, by offering special concessions to
customers who would deal with them to the exclusion of F. The
plaintiff(F) suffered loss and sued A,B, C and D on the ground of
conspiracy.
 HELD That the defendants had done nothing unlawful, by
combining for the purpose of trade and competition. They acted
with lawful purpose of expanding trade and increase profits to
themselves, though the intention was to cause the plaintiff to lose
trade

Damnum sine Injuria
 In P.Seetharamayya v Mahalakshmiamma
AIR(1958) AP 103, the defendants dug a trench and put up a
bund in their own lands. As a result, rainwater flowed into plaintiff’s
land and caused damage. Plaintiff filed a suit for damages as well as
injunction.
 HELD Owner of a land has a right to build a fence upon his land to
protect damage by overflow of river, eventhough as a
consequence of that act, the overflowing water entered plaintiff’s
land and caused damage. This is a case of “Damnum sine Injuria”
and the defendants are not liable

Damnum sine Injuria
 In Town Area Committee v Prabhudayal
AIR(1975) ALL 132, the plaintiff constructed some shops
without giving notice to municipal body and without obtaining
prior sanction The defendants demolished these shops.
Plaintiff claimed damages which was denied.
 HELD by Allahabad High court, on appeal, “that if a person
constructs a building illegally, the demolition of such
building by the municipal authorities, though motivated by
malice, would not amount to causing ‘injuria’ to the owner of
the property”

‘Wider and narrower’ or
“Growing Tree” Theory
 all injuries done to another person are torts unless
there is justifications recognised by law
 all unjustifiable harms are torts
 When a tort is specific, it is narrowed down to a
particular wrong
 when it is not specific, and considered that all harms
without legal justifications are torts, then, it is in a
wider sense


‘Wider and narrower’ or
“Growing Tree” Theory
 It is akin to a ‘growing tree’ with several branches
 each representing an existing or known tort
 New branches in the process of growing which represent
a new tort under development.
 The attitude of courts when they attempt to create new
torts depending on the type of harm and need.
 Thus tort is like a ‘growing tree’
 This theory is supported by Winfield, Pollock and other
eminent jurists

Pigeon Hole Theory
 there are definite number ofTorts , outside which liability in
Tort does not arise.
 Here, the law ofTorts consist of a ‘net-set’ of pigeon holes,
 each containing a specific tort such as assault, battery, deceit,
slander, negligence, etc.,
 If the defendant’s wrong does not fit in any of these pigeon
holes, then he has committed ‘no tort’.
 This theory is supported by Salmond, GlanvilleWilliams and
others


Development of New Torts
 Tort has grown over the years giving rise to new areas of
torts such as strict liability, absolute liability and so on
 New branches of laws like consumer protection laws,
defamation laws and the like, are in place
 Whether these can be seen as new branches of a growing
tree, or new array of pigeon holes, both approaches can
be accommodated as valid points of view.

OTHER PRINCIPLES OF
LIABILITY
• Absolute Liability
• Strict Liability
• Vicarious Liability

ABSOLUTE LIABILITY: Rule laid
down by Supreme Court of India
in the Oleum Gas Leak Case
• Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or
inherently dangerous activity, the enterprise is strictly
and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are
affected by the accident and such liability is not subject
to any exceptions.
• The enterprise cannot escape liability by showing it had
taken all reasonable care and there was no negligence
on its part.
• This principle, however, has been rarely applied since it
was formulated.

STRICT LIABILITY: Rule
in Ryland v. Fletcher
• “The person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land
and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief
if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril; and if he does not
do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is
the natural consequence of its escape.”
• The liability under this rule is strict and it is no defense
that the thing escape without that persons willful act,
default or negligence or that he had no knowledge of its
existence.

STRICT LIABILITY:
Exceptions
• Only applicable when non-natural use of land
• Not applicable when:
– the escape of the object was due to act of God
– the escape was a result of an act of a stranger, or
default of the person injured
– the thing was present with the consent of the person
injured or for common benefit of person injured.
– it is the consequence of an act done for public
purpose in the discharge of a public duty under the
express authority of a statute.

In Jai Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat,
(1994) 4 SCC 1, Justice Sahai., observed, “Truly
speaking the entire law of torts is founded and
structured on morality. Therefore, it would be
primitive to close strictly or close finally the ever
expanding and growing horizon of tortuous liability.
Even for social development, orderly growth of the
society and cultural refineness, the liberal approach
to tortious liability by court would be conducive.

In Lala Punnalal v Kasthurichand Ramaji, it was
pointed out that there is nothing like an
exhaustive classification of torts beyond which
courts should not proceed, that new invasion of
rights devised by human ingenuity might give
rise to new classes of torts

An introduction to law of torts

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to An introduction to law of torts (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

An introduction to law of torts