Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TO
LAW OF TORTS
Sandeep Kulshrestha
Amity Law School
Amity University Madhya Pradesh
Syllabus
Module I: Introduction to Tort
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, Plaintiffs default, Act of God, Inevitable
accidents, Private defences, Judicial and Quasi Judicial
Acts, Parental and quasi-parental authority.
Syllabus
A tort is a private
wrong committed by
one person against
Definition of a 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.
WRONGFUL ACT-III
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
LEGAL DAMAGE
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 plaintiffs
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 plaintiffs
land and caused damage. This is a case of Damnum sine Injuria
and the defendants are not liable
Damnum sine Injuria
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