Introduction, Nature, Classification, scope and element of law of torts. Case laws.

1. Arun Verma (c) 1
ARUN VERMA ©
Assistant Professor of Law

2. • Origin: Latin term “TORTUM” – Means “to Twist”.
• It is equivalent to English term “Wrong”.
• Various Torts/Wrongful acts = Wrongdoer violates some legal
rights vested in another person.
• Law impose a duty to respect the legal rights vested in the
members of the society and the person making a breach of
that duty is said to have done the wrongful act.
• Torts is breach of duty recognised under the law of torts.
• “Writs” are the chief remedy and origin of law of torts.
*What is “Right”?
= Those demands which are recognised by the sovereign
(Popular Government/Legislature) are said to be legal rights,
which are enforceable by the municipal courts.
Arun Verma (c) 2

3. • Law of torts has been evolved from the Common Law.
Arun Verma (c) 3

4. Arun Verma (c) 4
Civil Law Common Law
Written Constitution
Judicial Decisions
Writings of legal scholars
Freedom of Contract
Not Always
Binding
Little Influence
Extensive – Only a few
provisions implied by law
into contractual
relationship

5. • “Tort” means a civil wrong which is not exclusively a breach of
contract or breach of trust”
………. S. 2 (m), the Limitation Act, 1963
• “It is a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action for
unliquidated damages and which is not exclusively the breach of a
contract or the breach of a trust or other merely equitable
obligation.”
……. Salmond.
• “Tortious liability arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by
the law: this duty is towards persons generally and its breach is
redressible by an action for unliquidated damages.”
……. Winfield
• “It is an infringement of a right in rem of a private individual giving
a right of compensation at the suit of injured party.”
…….. FraserArun Verma (c) 5

6. CIVIL WRONGS CRIMINAL WRONGS
Arun Verma (c) 6
BREACH OF
TRUST OR
OTHER
EQUITABLE
OBLIGATION
REST OTHER CIVIL
WORNGS ARE
TORTS
BREACH OF
CONTRACT

7. • Duty to take care.
• Function of tort to shift loss.
• King’s Court gave remedies for various form of
torts.
• Various torts have been codified and hence
are now being studied in other Acts.
• No liability – Vis Major / Inevitable Accident
• Remedy: Pecuniary Damages and
Computation of Damages (Complicated Issues)
and Injunction (i.e. Nuisance).
Arun Verma (c) 7

8. Tort
The Person
i.e. Trespass,
Negligence
Family
i.e.
Wrongful
Death of a
relative
Reputation
i.e. Libel and
Slander
Property
i.e. Trespass
to land or
goods,
nuisance,
conversion
Economic
Rights
i.e. Inducement
of Breach of
Contract,
Injurious
Falsehood
Miscellaneous
i.e. Conspiracy
Other
Actionable
Torts
i.e.
Infringement
of Privacy
Arun Verma (c) 8

9. • Donoghue v. Stevenson, 1932 A.C. 562.
Ginger Beer Case…
Lord Lacmillan: The Duty in my opinion, he
(the Manufacturer)owes to those whom he
intends to consume his products.
• Klaus Mittelbachert v. East India Hotels Ltd.
AIR 1997.
Pilot Lufthansa, Defective design of the
Swimming Pool Case. Rule of Exemplary
damages applied – Rs. 50 Lac Damages.
Arun Verma (c) 9

10. Essentials of a Tort
• There must be Some Act or Omission on the
Part of Defender.
• The Act or Omission should result in Legal
Damage (injuria) i.e. Violation of a legal right
vested in the Plaintiff.
• Injuria Sine Damno i.e. Violation of a Legal
Right without causing any harm, loss or
damage to the plaintiff.
– Ashby v White (1703): Vote case
– Bhim Singh V. State of J&K, AIR 1986: Wrongfully
Detainment by the J&K Police, Violation of Art. 21
Arun Verma (c) 10

11. Damnum sine injuria: damage which is not
coupled with an unauthorized interference
with the plaintiff’s lawful right.
- Gloucester Grammar School Case(1410)
- Mogul Steamship Co. McGregor Gow and
Co, 1892. (reduced freight)
- Ushaben v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir, AIR
1978. : Jai Santoshi Maa movie case
- Action v. Blundell, 1884
Coalpit – Interception of water which affected
the plaintiff’s well.
Arun Verma (c) 11

12. • P. Seetharamayya v. Mahalakshmanna AIR
1958, AP 103: Building a bund on land case:
– The law permits the protection of one’s property
from apprehended danger by preventing the
entrance of flood – water to one’s land even
though such an act causes damages to neighbors.
But if the flood-water has already entered one’s
land, the law does not permit to cast it upon
adjoining land.
Dickson V. Reuter’s Telegram Co. 1877:
- Negligently delivery of telegram regarding order
of shipment of barley from Valparaiso to England
case.
Arun Verma (c) 12

13. Bradford Corporation (Mayor of ) v. Pickles, 1895:
- Defendant sank a shaft over his own land which
diminished and discolored the water flowing to the land of
the plaintiffs. The lord Ashbourne said “the plaintiffs have
no cause unless they cans how that they are entitled to
the flow of the water in question, and that the defendant
has no right to do what he is doing…
Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal, AIR 1975:
- It was held that the defendants were not liable as no
“injuria” could be proved because if a person constructs a
building illegally, the demolition of such building by the
municiple authorities would not amount to causing
“injuria” to the owner of the property.
Arun Verma (c) 13

14. Mental Element in Tortious Liability
- Mental element is an essential element in most of the
forms of crime. It is not so easy to make nay such
generalization about liability in tort.
Fault when relevant:
- In many branches of law of torts like assault, battery, false
imprisonment, deceit, malicious prosecution and
conspiracy, the state of mind of a person is relevent to
ascertain his liability. We may have to see whether a
particular wrongful act was done intentionally or
maliciously.
Liability without fault:
- There are certain areas where the mental element is quite
irrelevant and the liability arises even without any wrongful
intention or negligence on the part of defendant. In such
cases , innocence of the defendant and honest mistake on
his part is no defence. Tort of Conversion is example of the
same. Arun Verma (c) 14

15. Malice in Law and Malice in Fact:
(1) – In its legal sense, it means a willful act
done without just cause or excuse and it is
known as “malice in law”. i.e. Defamation
(2) – In its narrow and popular sense, it means
an evil motive, and the same is known ad
“malice in fact”. i.e. Theft
Exception to the rule:
- Qualified Privilege or fair comment.
- Wrongful Intention.
- Deceit, Conspiracy, Malicious Prosecution,
Personal Discomfort etc.
Arun Verma (c) 15

16. Arun Verma (c) 16