Negligence[edit]

In regard to negligence, Indian jurisprudence have approved the approach stated in Ratanlal &
Dhirajlal: The Law of Torts,[14][15] laying down three elements:

A legal duty to exercise "ordinary care and skill".

The breach of [the] 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.

Resulting in injury to the plaintiff's person or property.

Professional negligence[edit]
The Indian approach to professional negligence requires that any skilled task requires a skilled
professional.[16] Such a professional would be expected to be exercising his skill with reasonable
competence.[17]
Professionals may be held liable for negligence on one of two findings:

He was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed.

He did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did
possess.
The standard to be applied for judging negligence would be that of an ordinary competent person
exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not necessary for every professional to possess the
highest level of expertise in that branch which he practices.[17] Professional opinion is generally
accepted, but courts may rule otherwise if they feel that the opinion is "not reasonable or
responsible".[18]
Contributory negligence[edit]
Indian Courts recognise the concept of contributory negligence. Contributory negligence means the
failure by a person to use reasonable care for the safety of either of himself or his property, so that
he becomes blameworthy in part as an "author of his own wrong".[19]
In the absence of reasonable care on the part of the claimant, courts are likely to reduce the liability
of the injurer. "The rule of negligence with the defense of contributory negligence holds an injurer
liable if and only if he was negligent and the victim was not. In India, this rule requires proportional
sharing of liability when both parties were negligent. That is, the compensation that the victim
receives gets reduced in proportion to his or her negligence."[20]

Defamation[edit]
The tort of defamation in India has largely followed the approach taken by the UK. Indian courts
have endorsed the defences of absolute[21] and qualified privilege,[22] fair comment[23] and justification.
[24]
In UK, if the defendant is only successful in proving the truth of some of the several charges
against him, the defence of justification might still be available if the charges not proved do not
materially injure the reputation.[25] While there is no such provision in India, the law is possibly the
same.[26] Recently, incidents of defamation in relation to public figures are highlighted. [27]
However, in India, the weight of the authorities is for discarding between libel and slander and
making both of them actionable per se.[26] In UK, only libel and certain types of slander is
actionable per se.[28] Criminal libel in UK was abolished in 2010,[29] while both slander and libel remain
criminal offences in India,[30] making people liable not just to the extent of damages but also
undergoing imprisonment.[31] An injunction may also be granted to stop further publication of
defamatory material.[32]

Economic torts[edit]
Economic Torts seek to protect a person in relation to his trade, business or livelihood. [33]
While Indian courts has been reluctant to award damages for the economic torts of simple and
unlawful conspiracy as well as inducing breach of contract due to the confused state of the law,[34] the
court has allowed damages for torts affecting economic interests under the conspiracy to injure, and
in doing so, referred to UK authorities on the matter.[35]
The courts have however been more willing to adopt the law in UK in areas such as the tort of
deceit,[36] unlawful interference with trade,[37] intimidation,[38] and malicious falsehood.[39]

Land torts[edit]
Land torts seek to prevent interference with land in the possession of another.[40] Interference may
take the form of entering land or part of it, or of remaining there after the withdrawal of permission, or
of dispossessing the occupant.[33]
Trespass to land[edit]
Trespass to land is any direct interference with land in the possession of another and is
actionable per se.[33] Examples of trespass are unauthorised entry to land, placing things on land and
inducing animals to enter.[41] Also, continuing trespass, which is actionable from day to day,[42] occurs
when there is continuation of presence after permission is withdrawn.[43] The position taken with
regards to the elements of trespass is similar in the UK and India. [44]
Nuisance[edit]
Nuisance is a form of lesser interference with land.[33] It may be private or public, and private
nuisance has come to cover the conduct of the defendants which affects the claimant's interest in
the land.[45] This could be done by:

Affecting materially his land.

Affecting his use or enjoyment of it.

Interfering with servitudes and similar rights over the land. [33]
While private nuisance is always actionable, public nuisance is not. A claimant of public nuisance
has to establish special loss over and above the inconvenience suffered by the public in general,
[46]
as public nuisance is a crime and it would be unreasonable for everyone inconvenienced by it to
be allowed to claim.[47] This distinction was followed in India,[48] along with the UK principles of
nuisance.[49]