NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, ODISHA

LAW OF TORT PROJECT ON

MENTAL ELEMENTS

Submitted by Submitted to
Priyam Jain (15bba043) Hiranmayee Mishra
Deepak Agarwal (15bba017)

Date 16/9/2015
 CONTENTS

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS1

2. ACKNOWLEGMENT....2

3. PREFACE....3

4. INTRODUCTION4

5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.5
I SCOPE II LIMITATION III OBJECTIVE IV RESEARCH QUESTION

6. DISCUSSION...6
I. MENTAL ELEMENT ITS RELEVANCE IN TORTIOUS LIABILITY.
II. KINDS OF TORTS WHERE MENTAL ELEMENT IS RELEVANT.
III. FIXATION OF LIABILITY AND DAMAGES

7. CONCLUSION.15

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY.16

Page | 1
 ACKNOWLEGEMENT
Couple expressions of thankfulness for the individuals who have been a piece of this project
right from its initiation. The writing of this project has been one of the noteworthy scholarly
difficulties we have confronted and without the bolster, persistence, and direction of the
individuals included, this project would not have been completed, it is to them I owe my most
profound appreciation.

It give gives me enormous delight in introducing this project report on "MENTAL

ELEMENTS IN LAW OF TORT". It has been our benefit to have a group of task aide who
helped us from the initiation of this project. The accomplishment of this project is an
aftereffect of sheer diligent work, and determination put by us with the assistance of our
subject instructor .We therefore takes this opportunity to thank her.

We likewise feel heartiest feeling of commitment to our seniors, who helped me in gathering
of information and asset material .The task is devoted to each one of those individuals, who
helped us while doing this project.

Page | 2
 PREFACE
Mental element plays very significant role in criminal law. The standard normal law test of
criminal obligation is generally communicated in the Latin expression, actus reus non facit
reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty".
Along these lines, in purviews with due procedure, there must be an actus reus, or
"blameworthy act", joined by some level of mens rea to constitute the wrongdoing with
which the litigant is charged. We realize that mental components is fundamental in criminal
law however in Law of Torts it not extremely critical but rather it is significant in some
particular torts, for example False Imprisonment, Trespass, Malicious Prosecution, fault etc.
In this project report we will find the relevancy of mental elements through the case laws,
how liability is fixed and damages are awarded on the basis of on the presence of mental
element.
We also will find the kinds of torts in which mental element is significant without which tort
cannot be committed.

Page | 3
 INTRODUCTION

Tortious liability may emerge if a man creates any harm to casualty's life, property, notoriety
and in the law of tort damage can be brought about purposefully or accidently. Mens rea is
prevalent in criminal law but in law of tort it is less prevalent and it depends upon
circumstantial facts of the case. In order to prove liability the act must be done with mental
element i.e. Malice, intention, motive to make it an actionable tort.
Malice is one of the mental component in law of tort for obsession of liability. As portrayed
by Bayley J in Bromage v.Prosser the accompanying word "Malevolence in like manner
usual meaning means ill will against the individual, yet in its legitimate sense it implies a
wrongful act, done purposefully, without worthwhile motivation or excuse.1
Intention is a mental element with which a man acts, and thus it can't normally be straightly
proved however must be derived from encompassing certainties and circumstances and in tort
law plan assumes a key part in deciding the common risk of persons who confer damage.
Motive is the perspective of a person which motivates him to do an act. As set down in Allen
V. Surge Watson said "a bad motive is a vital state of liability for a civil wrong"2
Within various fields included in law of tort there are some specific fields in law of tort which
essentially require mental element as a component to make the given action as an actionable
tort. Specific torts essentially requiring mental element which will be in focus in the current
project through the case study are:
(1) Malicious Prosecution: Malicious indictment is noxious establishment against another of
unsuccessful criminal, or bankruptcy, or liquidation procedures, with no sensible or
reasonable justification.3

(2) False Imprisonment - False imprisonment is the unlawful limitation of a man without
wanting to by somebody without legitimate power or defence.

(3) Fault is a kind of liability in which the offended party must demonstrate that the litigant's
behavior was either careless or purposeful; issue based obligation is the inverse of strict
liability.

1 Bromage V. Prosser 4B& C 247,255(1825)

2 Allen v Flood AC 1(1898)
3Ratanlal&Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts 25th edition.

Page | 4
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The present study is basically a doctrinal study; exploration attempted is descriptive in
nature with a scientific way to deal with the order. Both principle and auxiliary information
has been utilized and break down as a part of the all-encompassing way for the plan of the
proposal. Descriptive research incorporates overviews and actuality discovering request of
diverse mixtures. The significant utilization of unmistakable exploration is a portrayal of the
situation as it subsists at present.

SCOPE
The project will make its attempt for illuminating Mental Elements in Law of Tort and also
will attempt to understand various aspects of mental elements in Law of Tort. This project
report also makes its effort to provide for, broad outlook of significance of mental element in
Law of Tort.

LIMITATION
"Over the compass of insisting and inspecting resources that we have relied on, it has been
genuinely felt that the spaces of this topic is really wide. Likewise, starting now and into the
foreseeable future, this paper may be centring particularly point with reference to the
criticalness, sorts of torts in which mental elements utilized, included as a part of the LAW
OF TORT, and therefore, keeping and narrowing the degree of the argumentation of the
already expressed issues, in mission for a closer examination of them."

OBJECTIVE
1. To study relevance of Mental Element in Law of Tort.
2. To determine specific torts in which mental element is essential.
3. Fixation of tortious liability in specific torts which is essentially require mental
element.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
(1) How far are Mental elements essential in tort?
(2) What are the types damages are awarded while fixing the tortious
liability on presence or absence of mental element in the tortious act
committed?

Page | 5
 DISCUSSION

A Tortious Liability may emerge if a man brings on any harm identified

with the casualty's life, property, notoriety, and so forth. This liability is
polite in nature. In law of tort, the liability can be acquired paying little
heed to whether the damage was perpetrated deliberately or
coincidentally.

Not at all like tort, is the vicinity of mens rea correlated in criminal law. Be
that as it may, in law of tort, its presence is subordinate upon the
circumstances and certainties of every case. It could possibly be vital to
demonstrate a mala fide4 plan to alter obligation upon the tort feasor5 .
Hence, on the basis of intention, tort can be divided into two namely:

a) Intentional Tort b) Unintentional Tort

a) INTENTIONAL TORT

It is a sort of tort that can come about just from the purposeful
demonstration of the wrong-practitioner. Regular intentional torts are
battery, assault, false detainment, trespass to land, trespass to assets,
and deliberate punishment of enthusiastic trouble.

Knowledge alongside sensible and considerable sureness, that a

demonstration of the respondent might deliver a tortious result, is
adequate to hold him at liable.6

b) UNINTENTIONAL TORT

On account of an accidental tort, the litigant reasons harm to the offended

party, however with no mala fide goal. It might be called an unintended
mischance. The individual who brought about the damage did as such
unintentionally in light of the fact that he/she was not being watchful.
Such a person may be termed as careless or reckless. In the occasion of
an inadvertent tort, we may see that the damage is brought on because of
the exclusion of the "obligation of duty of care", which a sensible and
judicious man should have considered.

RELEVANCE OF INTENTION

Prosser's Handbook of the Law of Torts says that goal in tort law is not so
much an antagonistic purpose, or a craving to do any damage. Maybe it is

4 Prabodh Sagar v. Punjab State Electricity Board 5 SCC 630, (2005)

5 Means who commits a tort; a wrongdoer, Blacks law dictionary, 7th Edn, p.1497
6 Garrat v. Dailey, 46 Wash 2d 197, 279 p. 2d 1091 (1955)

Page | 6
expectation to achieve an outcome which will attack the interest of
another in a manner that the laws won't authorize7

Hypotheses of goal in tort law can be either subjectivist or objectivist. The

previous hypothesis intends to rebuff the tortfeasors for purposefully or
possibly intentionally disregarding standards that are certain in the law.
The guideline basic is that the mental condition of the wrong practitioner
is essential while deciding the appropriateness of the liability.
On the other hand, under the objectivist hypothesis, obsession or
determination of tortious liability is exogenous as for the mental condition
of the wrong practitioner. For instance it is clear on account of trespass
that one can be discovered liable for it despite the fact that there was no
expectation to trespass can be further illustrate by case law - League
against Cruel Sports v Scott.

Facts - A negligent entry is conceivable and was considered in League

against Cruel Sports v Scott. The Ps claimed 23 unfenced zones of area.
Staghounds used to enter the area in quest for deer. The Ps sued the joint
Masters of the Hounds for harms and looked for a directive against further
trespasses. Park J issued an order in admiration of one territory controlling
the respondents themselves, their workers or specialists, or mounted
adherents, from bringing on or allowing dogs to enter or cross the
property. Damages for six trespasses were granted.8

Judgment - "Where an expert of staghounds takes out a pack of dogs and

purposely sets them in quest for a stag or rear realizing that there is a real
danger that in the interest dogs may enter or cross disallowed area, the
expert will be liable for trespass on the off chance that he planned to bring
about the dogs to enter such land or if by his inability to practice
legitimate control over them he makes them enter such land.9

REMEDIES
Damages (which will be nominal if there is slight damage to arrive).
An injunction to forestall further demonstrations of trespass (at the
court's carefulness).
An activity for the recuperation of land if a man has been denied of
legitimate ownership of the area (once in the past known as
ejectment).

We should likewise comprehend that in specific circumstances, the

absence of intention or a genuine oversight is a decent defense. For
instance: Vicarious risk of an expert for the tort of his worker may be
disregarded by a slip-up of the hireling which is outside the course of his
employment.10

7William. L. Prosser, Handbook of the law of torts, 31 St. Paul West Publishing Co. 4th Edn, (1971)
8 League Against Cruel Sports v. Scott (1985)
9 Id.
10 Gaya Prasad v. Bhagat Singh, ILR 30 AII 525 PC(1908)

Page | 7
In well-known sense, Intention suggests that the respondent is totally
mindful of his behavior and the characteristic results which are certain to
take after. Additionally, he has a powerful urge for the event of those
outcomes.

In Wilkinson v. Downston11, the respondent kidded to the offended party

that her spouse had met with and a mishap and was admitted to a
doctor's facility. This news stunned her and she fell truly sick. From that
point, she sued the litigant for harms under tort. The respondent fought
that he never needed to bring about any mischief to the offended party
however cut a joke just. The court dismisses his dispute and held him
subject. Here, the court watched that mere intention is not a crucial
component in tort. The respondent knew the regular and plausible
outcomes of his demonstration which made harm the offended party. In
this manner, he was obligated, whether he planned it or not.12

INTENTIONAL OMISSION

In such circumstances likewise there is no requirement for goal in tort. For

instance: if a medical attendant purposely permits a kid to get into a
position of risk and get wounds, she will be held liable. Here it is not the
intentional exclusion which is the premise of liability, yet it is the breach of
her duty to take care of and look after.
As already discussed, we know that Intention by itself is not a good
defense in tort. It is clearly impossible to know what is going on in the
mind of the defendant.

Chief Justice Brian has appropriately portrayed the above contention in

the accompanying words:

"It is regular information that the considered man might not be attempted,
for the demon himself knoweth not the considered man.13

MOTIVE

Motive is the perspective of a man which rouses him to do a

demonstration. For the most part, it implies the reason behind the
commission of an act. Motive, much the same as goal, is by and large
superfluous in the law of tort. As per Salmond,-

It is the act and not the motive for the act that must be respected. In the
event that the act, aside from the rationale, gives rise just to harm with
legal injury.14 the motive, however reprehensible it may be, will not supply
that element.

11 Wilkinson v Downton (1897), EWHC 1 (QB), 2 QB 57(1897)

12 Id.
13 Year book Pasch, 17th Edn, 4 Vol.2, p.2
14 Damnum sine injuria

Page | 8
The choice of Lord Watson in Allen v. Flood15, settled that Motive is
unimportant in the law of torts:

Despite the fact that the principle might somehow or another concerning
wrongdoing, the law of England does not consider motive as a constituting
a component of civil wrong. Any intrusion of the common right of someone
else is itself a lawful wrong, conveying it with the liability to repair its
important or normal outcomes in so far as those are harmful to the
individual whose right is encroached, whether the intention which
elevated it to be great, terrible or detached.

The Indian courts have additionally talked about the insignificance of

motive and also malice in various cases.

In Vishnu Basudeo v. T.L.H. Smith Pearse16, Mudholkar. J. observed,

The main instance of Allen v. Surge, set out that when in doubt, a bad
motive is a key state of obligation for a common wrong with the exception
of in cases like malicious prosecution, slander and conspiracy. What has
usually to be seen is the unlawful act. On the off chance that it is along
these lines, then motive with which it was done is of little importance. For
this situation, on the other hand, it has been held that the act must
presume to have been planned by the respondent to bring about mental
and real pain to a litigant I concur with this perspective.

Taking everything into account, we could say that a good motive is no

avocation for acts generally unlawful and a bad motive does not make
wrongful a demonstration generally legitimate.

EXCEPTIONS TO RULE

There are sure classifications of tort where motive may be a key

component, and along these lines pertinent in deciding liability:

In the cases of deceit, malicious prosecution, injurious falsehood and

defamation, where safeguard of benefit or reasonable remark is
accessible. The resistance of qualified benefit is just accessible, if the
distribution was made in compliance with common decency.

In instances of conspiracy, interference with exchange or contractual

relations.

15Allen v. Flood 7 H.L. Cas 349(1898)

16 Vishnu Basudeo v. T.L.H. Smith Pearse AIR Nag. 364(1949)

Page | 9
 In instances of nuisance, bringing on of individual distress by an
unlawful motive may transform a generally legal act into nuisance (held
on account of Palmer v. Loder, (1962) CLY)

DISTINCTION BETWEEN MOTIVE AND INTENTION

Motive has been described as an ulterior intent17. These two words are
frequently utilized conversely as a part of mainstream and even legitimate
utilization. Motive is a definitive article with which an act is done, while
intention is the prompt reason. Cases: A distributes a defamatory letter
about B, his worker, to C. A's purpose to criticize B yet his motive may be
to illuminate C a meaning superintendent of B, about B's character and
anticipate C utilizing B. Here, notwithstanding a libelous intent, a great
motive will render A's act lawful.
Some of the time the position may be turn around. A takes a piece of
bread from B's pastry kitchen. An is liable for burglary and additionally for
the common wrong of trespass, however As intention was not to make
misfortune B but rather to sustain A's starving kid.

FAULT: ESSENTIAL ELEMENT IN TORT?

According to Salmond, fault is the basis of all tortious liability18. The rule
fundamental is that the casualty should be qualified for monetary
reparation, just and just if, his damage is brought on by the respondent's
deficiency.
In spite of the accentuation on the prerequisite of fault as a vital state of
liability, the law of tort contains standards of "strict liability" i.e. liability
forced without evidence of issue. On account of M.C. Mehta v. Union of
India19, the Supreme Court expressed the principle of Rylands v. Fletcher,
the tenet of strict liability. Also, on account of perilous and innately
hazardous industry, the rule of supreme liability has been perceived.

THE RECENT TREND

17 Salmond jurisprudence, p. 397

18 Salmond, Law of Torts, 20th Edn, p.23
19 M.C.Mehta v. Union of India AIR SC 1086(1987)

Page | 10
The relative late pattern is to move the liability to those shoulders who
can endure it or who can go on the loss to people in general. In the main
instance of White v. White20, Lord Denning observed, "late authoritative
and legal advancements demonstrate that the model of liability in tort is
not so much culpability, but rather on whom the danger fall?"

In Indian situation acts like the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 are acts
which accommodate remuneration without considering upon the topic of
obligation.

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, accommodates an altered measure of pay if

there should be an occurrence of death or perpetual handicap of the
casualty's mischance, regardless of the fact that the driver or proprietor of
the vehicle is not at shortcoming. In such a case, even contributory
negligence of the mishap is no guard.

FALSE IMPRISONMENT: ESSENTIAL ELEMENT IN TORT?

False imprisonment is the infliction of bodily restraint which is not express or impliedly
authorized by law21.

In the case of tort related to False Imprisonment the mental element which is relevant is
knowledge. Knowledge which is relevant here is that of claimant about the wrong being done
against him. Knowledge may simply be defined as information as to a fact22

The relevance of mental element of knowledge in the case of false imprisonment can be
examined through the leading Case Law.

Meering v. Grahame-White Aviation Co Ltd.23

Case Facts -The petitioner was blamed for taking a barrel from his businesses, respondents
for this situation. Their two gatekeepers were requested that take him to their organization's
principle office. Throughout voyaging they took an alternate way and was taken to the sitting
tight space for further procedures. While she was in the holding up room the policeman
stayed in neighborhood. Subsequently a suit guaranteeing False Imprisonment was brought
against the respondents.

Defense argument: The lawyer in the interest of respondents contended that the petitioner
was totally allowed to go anyplace on the off chance that he sought and there was nobody to
stop him. Also, he stayed there all alone will has he had the information that he can clear out

20 White v. White p. 39 at p. 59(1950)

21W.V.H. Rogers, WINFIELD & JOLOWICZ TORT, 98 (2010)
22 Definition of knowledge,Available at http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/knowledge
23 Meering v Grahame-White Aviation Co Ltd 122 LTR 44(1920)

Page | 11
.Judgment: Atkins L.J. ruled that It appears to me that a person could be imprisoned
without his knowing it. I think a person can be imprisoned while he is asleep, while he is in a
state of drunkenness, while he is unconscious, and while he is a lunatic. Of course the
damages might be diminished and would be affected by the question whether he was
conscious of it or not24

Reasoning so given: The aforementioned choice was given because "in spite of the fact that a
man may not know he was detained, his captors may be gloating somewhere else that he
was".

Fixation of liability: In common practice and basing on precedents like Meering case25 and
Murray case26 it is held that if the inquirer does not have the adequate learning of his false
imprisonment, he might be granted Nominal Damages where as though he has the
information of this he will be honored exceptional harms basing upon the verifiable
circumstances.

Conclusion: Henceforth we can reason that mental element of learning assumes critical part
just in obsession of harms and the tortfeasor will be subject for his act, whether the offended
party had information or not.

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

Malignant prosecution is the noxious establishment of unsuccessful criminal or bankruptcy or

liquidation procedures against another without sensible or reasonable justification 27.
Liability for the malicious prosecution for the most part relies on two contending principals
which are:
(1) Every individual ought to have opportunity to set law in movement and convey criminals
to equity
(2) The need to check lying allegations against pure individuals.

24 W.V.H. Rogers, WINFIELD & JOLOWICZ TORT, 117 (2010)

25 W.V.H. Rogers, WINFIELD & JOLOWICZ TORT, 118 (2010)

26 Murray v Ministry of Defence 2All ER 521(1988)

27Prateek Shanker Srivastava, Malicious Prosecution under Law of Tort, available at
http://legalserviceindia.com/article/l337-Malicious-Prosecution-under-Law-of-Tort.html.

Page | 12
If there should arise an occurrence of tort of malicious prosecution the mental component
which is significant is Malice. Perniciousness can be characterized as "Some other motive
than the longing to convey to equity a man whom he [the accuser] genuinely accepts to be
liable. Subsequently we can say "Malevolence exist where the informer's dominating is an
option that is other than the law.
The name of tort itself propose that Malice is of the most essential component in Malicious
indictment however the degree to which it is significant can be inspected through the
accompanying driving case law:
Drainville v. Vilchez28
Case Facts: Mr Denis Drainville was criminally charged for mischief and risky driving
depending on the affirmations of Mr Vilchez. After the trial procedures against Drainville he
was vindicated. After his exoneration Drainville brought a suit against Vilchez for the tort of
malicious prosecution.

Defence arguments: the litigant denied to give any generous data in regards to the accident.
As indicated by Vilchez, Drainville hit him with his car, yet as there was neither any
considerable data given nor any barrier introduced, the court exclusively depended on the
data supplied by Drainville who was the inquirer in the procedures of malacious prosecution.

Judgment: The honourable judge decided that "In default of any resistance, the offended
party's announcement of case asserts that the respondent's adaptation of occasions, in which
he accepted, were false," he composed. "Those deceptions included claims of truth that
involved the criminal's components charges. These are assertions of truth that I must
acknowledge."

Reasoning given: Any individual starting a legal proceeding against a man with no
significant proof or even a real conviction that the wrong so asserted was conferred by the
denounced, he will be at liable for civil proceeding against him in such circumstances, this is
done to check lying allegations against blameless individuals.
Fixation of Liability: Damages possibly recoverable in a malicious prosecution actions are
generous. They incorporate out-of-pocket consumptions, for example, lawyer's and other
legitimate charges 29, business losses30, general damage to notoriety, social standing and credit
31
, mental and bodily harm32, and exemplary damages where malice is shown33
In the above case the court requested that Vilchez ought to pay Drainville $23,866.37 for
legitimate charges and extra lease the offended party had due to the first criminal objections.

28 Drainville v. Vilchez ONSC 4060 (2014)

29 Stevens v. Chisolm 179 Cal. 557, 564-565. (1919)
30 Ray Wong v. Earle C. Anthony, Inc. 199 Cal. 15, 18. (1926)
31 Id.
32 Singleton v. Perry 45 Cal.2nd 489, 495. (1955)
33 MacDonald v. Joslyn 275 Cal.App.2nd 282, 293(1969)

Page | 13
Conclusion: Malicious indictment is a misuse of the court's procedure by wrongfully getting
the law under way on a criminal allegation. Keeping in mind the end goal to succeed the
offended party must demonstrate that there was an indictment with no equitable and sensible
reason, started by perniciousness and the case was chosen in the offended party's support. It is
important to demonstrate that harms were brought about by the offended party as an
indictment's consequence. The weight of verification lays on him. He needs to demonstrate
the presence of malice.

Malignance may be demonstrated by already recolored relations, absurd and despicable

behavior like promoting the energize or getting false confirmation. Despite the fact that minor
lack of regard is not the fundamentally confirmation of perniciousness, irrational behavior
like scurry, rashness or inability to make enquiries would be some proof.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE

In the following cases malice becomes relevant in determining tortious

liability:

At the point when the act is generally unlawful and wrongful goal
can be accumulated from the case's circumstances.34

Malice with respect to the litigant to be demonstrated in torts of

deceit, malicious prosecution.

The presence of malice in instances of defamation negatives great

confidence and the respondent can't keep away from liability by the
resistance of qualified benefit in such a case.

Creating of individual uneasiness by public annoyance.

Malice which brings about aggravation of damages.

NEGLIGENCE AND RECKLESSNESS

34 Balak Glass Emporium v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, AIRKer 342( 1993)

Page | 14
Blacks law dictionary defines negligence35 as: The exclusion to do
something which a sensible man guided by those normal contemplations
which usually direct human issues would do, or the doing of something
which a sensible and judicious man would not do"

In the law of torts, negligence has two meanings:

1. An independent tort

2. A mode of committing certain other torts. For example: trespass or

nuisance.

In Donoghue v. Stevenson36, it was held that carelessness exists where

there is a "duty to take care", and there is rupture of this obligation. It was
watched that negligence is a behavior and not a perspective and there is
no fundamental component of flaw included.

Recklessness implies a high level of thoughtlessness. It is the doing of

something which actually includes a grave danger to others, whether the
practitioner acknowledges it or not37.

Cases such as the Balloon case, Scott v. Shepherd includes topic

managing lesser perspectives which may be viewed as carelessness or
recklessness 38.

CONCLUSION

It has turned out to be very much settled from the above exchange that
tort is a common wrong where a legitimate harm is brought on to the
casualty by the tortfeasor and thusly, financial reparation is honored to
the harmed party as unliquidated damage.

By "Mental elements" we mean the "intention" of a man to bring about

legitimate damage to someone else by encroachment of his lawful right.

35 New Alderson B in Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co11 Exch. 781, 784 (1856)
36 Donoghue v. StevensonAC 562 (1932)
37 Donovam v. Landys LtdIR 441, 461, The best and the most realistic test , (1963)
38Scott v. Shepherd WBI 892(1773)

Page | 15
Expectation implies a perspective where the wrong practitioner has
complete information of his demonstration and its outcomes. Moreover, he
has a longing to accomplish those outcomes. In Criminal law, the mental
element shapes a key element of wrongdoing. Here the unimportant
demonstration of a wrong practitioner is not adequate to hold him subject
for an offense. The vicinity of a guilty mind is additionally needed.

Then again, it can be illustrated from the past parts that intention or the
mental element is "immaterial" in the law of tort. The expression
"irrelevant" means that vicinity or unlucky deficiency of mental element
should not negative the liability of the wrong doer. It has been as of now
talked about in the first section that torts can be purposeful and
additionally unexpected. If there should be an occurrence of the previous
the vicinity of mental component is obliged to focus tortious liability (for
instance in assault, battery, false detainment), while in recent, the mental
component is immaterial in determination of tortious liability
(carelessness). The basic standard is that a wrong practitioner can't
escape liability under the law of tort, just on the ground that he had no
goal to bring about mischief. In any case, a wrong practitioner may not be
held at risk in certain outstanding cases (case: qualified benefit).

In this way, it can be inferred that "Mental component" is not key in tort.
Nonetheless, we may say that the vicinity of it just aggravates the
damages.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Page | 16
BOOKS

1. Law of Torts,Ratanlal&Dhirajlal, 25th edition

2. Law of Tort including Compensation under consumer protection act, S.P. Singh, 5th
edition.
3. The Law of Torts, Ramaswamy Iyer, 10th edition.
4. The Anatomy of Tort, Peter Cane, 3rd edition.
5. Tort Law, John Hodgson and John Lewthwaite, 2nd edition.
6. A History of Tort Law, Paul Mitchell, 4th edition.
7. Tort Law(Text,Cases&Materials),Jenny Steele,2nd edition
8. Law of Tort, S.P. Singh, 5th Edition
9. Negligence Torts, Steve W. Schneider,2nd edition
10. The Law of Tort, Salmond and Heuston, 20th Edition

Articles
1. Northwestern Law Review 1 N.W. Rev. (1893),by Huffcut,Ernest Wilson
2. Torts in India - Whether Unnecessary or simply Overlooked by Mukesh Chauhan
3. Intent in Tort law, Boston University School of Law Working Paper No. 09-21 (April
22, 2009) by Keith N. Hylton

Page | 17