c
c

During the past year, insurers, manufacturers, physicians, consumer advocates, and trial
attorneys have vigorously debated the costs and benefits of tort law as a mechanism for
compensating and deterring injuries. The debate began with a perceived "insurance crisis," as
liability insurance premiums, particularly for medical malpractice and commercial lines,
increased sharply and insurance for some types of activities suddenly became unavailable at any
price. When insurers linked rising rates and unavailability to trends in tort litigation, attention
shifted to the legal system. In many states, as well as at the federal level, coalitions of insurers,
manufacturers, health care professionals, and municipal government officials were formed to
support substantive changes in tort law. Trial attorneys and consumer groups generally opposed
such changes, arguing that the insurance crisis was contrived, or at least attributable to factors
other than tort litigation trends.

Proponents and opponents of what became known as "tort reform" not only had different
ideological positions, but also appeared to hold sharply differing views of reality. Proponents of
change argued that there has been an explosion of liability lawsuits over the past several years,
that recent verdicts indicate that civil juries are "out of control," and that whatever monetary
benefits the tort liability system delivers to injured parties are overshadowed by the enormous
costs of administering the system. Tort reform was needed, they said, to counteract these trends.

Opponents of tort reform argued that the litigation explosion is a myth, that the level of jury
awards.


 c 

 




When someone commits a harmful act which leaves him or her open to a lawsuit which could
result in an award of damages, this is known as a tort. Torts can be intentional or brought about
through negligence, and they run the gamut from hitting someone while driving drunk to
neglecting to fix the plumbing in a home, causing flood damage. If someone is convicted of a
tort, also called a civil wrong, he or she will be required to compensate the victim with damages.
In some cases, it is possible to violate both civil and criminal law, resulting in jail time and an
order of compensation.

A tort does not necessarily involve an unlawful act. For example, in many regions of the world, it
is perfectly legal to adjust the controls on your car radio as you drive. If, however, you hit
someone while adjusting your radio, you will be accused of negligent driving, and you will be
liable for a tort suit. A tort can also involve a breach of common expectations, like the idea that
restaurant owners should check their food to ensure that it is safe to eat.

There are a number of different types of torts, including economic torts, which involve damage
to someone's business, defamation torts, in which people cause harm to someone or an
organization by spreading false information, and nuisance torts, in which the peaceful enjoyment
of property is disturbed by things like pollution or loose animals. Many torts are negligence torts,
with a lawsuit being filed because someone failed to do his or her basic duty.

In many cases, people are required to get liability insurance to cover themselves in case they are
involved in a tort suit. For example, doctors in many parts of the world must have malpractice
insurance, which pays damages in the event that a doctor is convicted of negligence on the job.
Landlords can also get such insurance to protect themselves from tenant suits, and drivers often
carry liability insurance in case they hit other people.

As you might imagine, tort law is extremely complex, and several courses in law schools are
devoted to the issue of torts. Tort reform has also become a topic of hot discussion, especially in
the United States, where citizens are notoriously lawsuit happy, willing to sue in almost any
circumstances in the hopes of obtaining reparations for things ranging from spilled coffee to
spilled chemicals.



A tort claim is a legal claim made in response to being subjected to a wrongful act that did not
involve a breach of contract. Torts can be classified into five categories: intentional torts,
negligence, strict liability, product liability and miscellaneous torts. When a person files a tort
claim, he or she is filing a civil lawsuit against the person or other entity that committed the tort.
To sue successfully based on a tort claim, a plaintiff must prove that all of the elements of the
tort were committed.

One have a tort claim for an intentional tort, the plaintiff must be able to prove three elements:
intent, a volitional act and causation. Intentional tort liability arises when a person or entity
intends to bring about mental or physical harm to another person and that other person
experiences mental or physical harm as a result of the accused¶s actions. An example of an
intentional tort is false imprisonment, which results from the intentional confinement or restraint
of a person to a contained space without justification.

A plaintiff has a tort claim of negligence if he or she can prove the elements of duty, breach,
causation and damages. A negligence claim arises when a person has not intended to cause harm,
but his unreasonable act or his unreasonable failure to act causes injury to another person. The
defendant might have had a duty to uphold the standard of care but will have breached that duty,
causing injury to the plaintiff. To have a negligence claim, it is not enough for a person¶s
negligent act to have caused harm to another person. The other person must actually show
damages that resulted from the negligent act.

In a strict liability tort claim, a person might be held liable for the plaintiff¶s injury without
having committed a wrongful act. The plaintiff must assert the elements that the defendant had
an absolute duty to make something safe and that the defendant breached that duty, resulting in
injury to the plaintiff or to the plaintiff¶s property. Strict liability tort claims can arise when a
defendant has engaged in ultra-hazardous or abnormally dangerous activities, when a defendant¶s
animal has harmed the plaintiff or when the defendant¶s product has harmed the plaintiff. For
example, if a company demolishes a building and a person suffers injury during the demolition,
the company might be held strictly liable for that person¶s injury.

Most plaintiffs bring products liability claims under a strict liability theory. Under a strict
liability theory, the manufacturer and any commercial supplier of the product that caused the
injury can be held strictly liable for the plaintiff¶s injuries if that product was dangerously
defective. For example, if a company made cotton swabs on a sharp wooden stick with the
knowledge that consumers might use these swabs to clean their ears, the company might be held
strictly liable for any consumers¶ punctured eardrums.

Other tort claims might be based on nuisance, defamation, invasion of privacy or fraudulent
misrepresentation. Nuisance results from a wrongdoer¶s interfering with the real property rights
of another person without physically invading that person¶s real property. For example, a
plaintiff might have a nuisance tort claim against a factory that produces strong odors that waft
onto the plaintiff¶s real property, preventing the plaintiff from enjoying fresh air on his or her
own property.




Tort reform would reduce the number of tort cases, and the dollar amounts rewarded in them.
The majority of tort cases focus on personal injury, but includes any situation where personal
property, reputation, mind or body is injured. More than anything else, advocates of tort reform
seek to control the amount of compensation that is given in various situations.

Tort itself is a subjective area of law. It refers to any injury or act against a person that causes
harm, and does not involve contracts. Interpreting what qualifies as legitimate injury for a law
suit can be difficult to do. Placing a dollar amount on that law suit can be equally challenging.
Supporters of tort reform believe that the inexact nature of tort has allowed claims and payments
on those claims to skyrocket.

There are various types of proposed tort reform. If reform occurs, it would be in small chunks of
legislation, each pointing to a specific area of tort. Two specific areas that have garnered much
public scrutiny are punitive damages and non-economic damages.
Punitive damages are sums of money paid to punish a criminal while acting as a deterrent to
future similar criminals. These sums of money are usually awarded when the crime is
particularly heinous or malicious. Non-economic damages are any money that is paid to
compensate the injured party for pain and suffering. This can include the loss of a spouse or
loved one.

Supporters of tort reform believe that the number of lawsuits has increased greatly over the past
20 years, and that the damages paid out have become increasingly large. They attribute social
issues like rising health care costs largely to medical malpractice suits. Advocates wish to see
reform that would cap non-economic damages, and prevent excessive punitive damages among
other key changes.

Opponents of tort reform believe that limiting these damages is unconstitutional, and would have
a number of negative effects. They believe that corporations would consider monetary loss
before public welfare, if given the choice. They say that corporations are less likely to consider
the cost of human loss, as opposed to economic loss for a company, if there are limitations to
how much they would have to pay out in wrongful death lawsuits. They believe that limiting
payouts will limit personal freedoms and choices.



Tort law is a branch of the law which covers civil wrongs, such as defamation and trespassing,
among many other transgressions. Under tort law, if someone suffers a physical, legal, or
economic harm, he or she may be entitled to bring suit. If the suit is deemed valid, damages may
be awarded to the victim to compensate for his or her troubles. Most tort laws are found in
regional, state, and national civil codes, which often spell out limits on damages and the statute
of limitations for tort cases.

Many people divide tort law into three rough categories: negligent torts, intentional torts, and
strict liability torts. Torts arising out negligence are civil wrongs caused by negligent behavior or
a failure to practice due diligence. For example, if you are playing soccer in the street and you
accidentally kick the ball through someone's living room window, this may be a negligence tort.
Medical malpractice and other forms of professional negligence are also covered under the
umbrella of negligence torts.

Intentional torts are torts which involve a deliberate attempt to harm. Defamation is often viewed
as an intentional tort, as is battery, fraud, false imprisonment, and interference with the economic
operations of a company. Strict liability torts cover product liability; if a potato peeler takes your
finger off when you operate it as directed, the manufacturer could be liable, for example.

Tort law also covers issues like nuisances, such as noise pollution and loose livestock. In some
countries, industrial pollution and releases of toxins are covered under tort law as ³toxic torts,´
allowing organizations and individuals to bring suit against companies which pollute. Nuisance
torts can sometimes be challenging to prove, as the definition of a ³nuisance´ often varies from
person to person.

As can be seen from some of the examples above, a tort doesn't have to cause physical injury or
distress. It might cause economic damage, by forcing someone to replace something, interfering
with someone's business, or causing someone to miss work. Or it may cause damage to
someone's reputation or quality of life. In order for a tort case to succeed in court, the lawyers
must generally be able to prove that the accused party had committed the wrong in question, and
that the client suffered as a result. Damages may be awarded by a jury or a judge, depending on
the case.



Tort litigation refers to a civil lawsuit that one individual brings against another. Tort litigation
allows a person to recover monetary damages for injuries that a defendant causes by negligent or
intentional behavior. It is distinct from criminal litigation, and there are different rules and
burdens of proof.

Tort law is a body of law relating to civil wrongs, or wrongs that one person commits against
another. Tort law exists in common law jurisdictions, including the United States, Canada,
Australia, England, Scotland and Ireland. Tort law is primarily comprised of judge-made law, or
case law that was created over years of judicial decisions in these common law jurisdictions

Under tort law, individuals have a legal duty to behave in a responsible and appropriate manner
to other individuals. When these legal duties are breached, the person who breaches them is
subject to civil penalties. The breach gives rise to tort litigation.

There are two types of tort litigation that occur: tort lawsuits based on intentional torts, and tort
lawsuits based on negligence. Sometimes the action that gives rise to a tort is also punishable
under criminal law, especially if the tort is intentional. This is not always the case, however, and
two distinct trials must always take place if a defendant is to face both criminal and civil charges.

Intentional torts occur when one person intentionally harms someone else. The victim of the
harm can sue the perpetrator under tort law principles. The victim can recover monetary damages
that he actually suffered, for lost wages and medical bills. He can also recover damages for pain
and suffering and emotional distress, as well as damages called "punitive damages" that are
designed solely to punish the perpetrator of the harmful action.

Negligent torts occur when one person negligently injures a victim. Under tort law principles,
everyone has a duty of care and a duty to behave reasonably. Failure to behave as a reasonable
person would give rise to tort litigation if that negligent behavior causes injury.

The standard of proof under a tort lawsuit is a preponderance of the evidence standard. This
means a plaintiff does not need to prove each element of a tort beyond a reasonable doubt in
order to be awarded damages. A plaintiff need only prove that, more likely than not, the
defendant did the negligent or intentional action and that the action actually caused the harm.

Under traditional tort principles, if a plaintiff was also negligent or contributed to the cause of
injury, the plaintiff could not recover his damages. This was referred to as the principle of
contributory negligence. This rule has been changed in most jurisdictions now, including the
United States, and under the new rule of comparative negligence, a plaintiff can still recover but
his recovery is limited by the percentage of his own responsibility.
ã

A mass tort is a civil suit with a large group of plaintiffs suing a limited number of defendants
for damages. The laws about mass torts vary and many regions have programs in place to
administer and manage mass torts. Cases must be designated as such in order to qualify for
administration under these programs. In a mass tort, hundreds or thousands of plaintiffs with
cases of a similar nature may be involved.

Some common reasons for a mass tort to occur include disasters involving large numbers of
people, product liability cases, and so-called toxic torts that involve exposure to toxins. In a mass
tort, the cases of the plaintiffs are all similar, even if they are not exactly the same. For example,
if a company is being sued for making a product that puts people at risk of finger amputation,
plaintiffs could include people who have lost anything from single fingers to all of the fingers on
one hand. However, someone injured by a separate product from the same manufacturer or in
different circumstances would not be able to join the mass tort.

Litigating mass torts requires a highly coordinated legal team. Lawyers work with plaintiffs to
collect supporting documentation, move through the discovery process to uncover documents
and evidence from the defendants, and bring the case to trial or work out a settlement. At the
conclusion of the case, if the jury agrees that the defendant is responsible, damages are awarded
to the plaintiffs.

When lawyers suspect that they have a mass tort on their hands, one of the first steps they take is
to seek out additional clients. For example, if a law firm has 200 people who experienced
dangerous side effects from a medication, it might publish notices asking people who have taken
that medication and had bad experiences to contact the firm. As the case progresses, notices can
be sent out to people who might be eligible for damages to alert them to the fact that a mass tort
is occurring and they can join the case to receive damages.

Some mass torts attract considerable attention because they involve popular or controversial
products. Notably, a number of pharmaceutical companies have been sued by large groups of
plaintiffs who have experienced problems with their medications. Mass torts have been used to
force companies to clean up environmental pollution, to recover damages for family members of
people who die in disasters, and to recover damages in a variety of other types of cases.


 !"

Personal injury litigation is the act of suing a party to get compensation for the costs of a
personal injury. These costs can be concrete, such as costs of medical bills resulting from the
injury, or more abstract, such as the costs of pain and suffering. Plaintiffs generally rely on a
personal injury lawyer in pursuing this kind of litigation.

Traditional forms of this type of litigation include suing an individual, where the case is
composed of one person¶s complaint against another, and suing a business or corporate party.
There are also individual personal injury suits, where a personal injury litigator represents one
family or household against a defendant, and mass personal injury suits. A common example of a
mass personal injury suit is when a company¶s product injures or sickens a large number of
customers.

In today¶s legal world, a lot of personal injury litigation is directed against insurance companies.
This new kind of personal injury case law focuses on how to get compensation from an insurance
carrier that covers certain types of situations. For example, either a pedestrian or a driver can
pursue compensation from an insurer where an at fault driver is a policy holder.

Another common form of personal injury litigation is in the area of medical malpractice. This
type of medical litigation includes suing for conditions of neglect in a hospital or health care
setting, mistakes made in surgery, incorrect diagnosis or medication, and other errors on the part
of trained medical staff. Independent financial groups are keeping an eye on how large amounts
of medical malpractice litigation are affecting health care in various financial systems.

In response to concerns about how personal injury litigation affects some areas of the free
market, government officials and economic experts are looking at options for what many call
³tort reform´ in limiting this type of litigation to provide more support for medical workers, and
to ease the costs of insuring individuals against some kinds of injury. The massive costs of
personal injury litigation can present a problem in a financial system where nobody is willing to
shoulder the burden of paying for the eventual compensation that personal injury litigators seek
for their clients. Looking at how insurance companies sometimes handle personal injury claims
and personal injury litigation shows what kinds of problems can arise when victims of personal
injury are denied access to compensation.

Like much else in the legal system, personal injury litigation is governed by legislation at both
the federal and state levels. Public officials continue to talk about charting a course for tort
reform that will promote economic growth. Professionals in medicine, law, and other sectors are
paying attention to what personal injury litigation could look like in the future.

#!$%$

Over the last thirty years the law has witnessed an explosion in the field of toxic tort litigation,
spawned by, among other things, rising awareness and activism over environmental and personal
injuries caused by corporate excesses. Corporations, unwilling to police themselves and intent
upon increasing profits at the expense of the public, have been targeted for civil liability by their
victims. Toxic tort litigation encompasses the gamut of product liability claims for chemical and
other substance poisonings. Due to the very nature of chemical and substance mishaps as well as
the long latency periods associated with many poisonings, large populations are often affected
before the nature and cause has been discovered. As a result, the law has been forced to develop
methods for dealing with mass tort litigation, including class action suits and multi-district
litigation.

Examples of toxic tort claims include, but are not limited to, the following:

#&$

These claims generally involve brain damage sustained by infants as a result of ingestion of the
lead in paint chips and flaking. Ashcraft & Gerel, LLP is heavily involved in lead paint litigation.

c'

These claims most often involve mesothelioma, lung cancer, restrictive lung disease and
asbestosis sustained by workers (or members of their families exposed to the dust on clothing) in
trades or in the military in which they were exposed to products containing asbestos.
 "$(

These claims involve brain damage and major organ damage caused by these chemicals used in
the dry cleaning industry.

$#!$#%# 

These claims involve birth injuries and birth defects.

$)$##'"!" &&$

Claims based upon cancer from exposure to electro-magnetic fields have been asserted.

%$#

Claims for leukemia and other chemically caused conditions have resulted from irresponsible
disposal of toxic wastes, sometimes poisoning entire towns.

*)#'!#+!!#%!

These claims involve exposure to toxic chemicals used as fire retarding agents.

Miscellaneous common industrial chemicals, including benzene, and PCBs

("#$$&

These claims involve poisoning by mercury and arsenic, among other substances.

Specific examples of well known toxic tort litigation witnessed in recent generations include:

c : Used in massive quantities in Viet Nam as a defoliant, causing injury to
countless soldiers and civilians.

%$ &, Examples include the Love Canal case in Niagara Falls, New
York, the Times Beach case in Missouri and the W.R. Grace case in Woburn, Massachusetts
(featured in the book and movie, "A Civil Action").
# %&!, Atomic testing during the 1940's has resulted in litigation over cancers
caused by atomic fallout. In addition, class action litigation resulted from the Three Mile Island
nuclear reactor accident.

c-





c

c.

ã.
/0 

Ö



 












 






 























 - Salmond



#

In India the term tort has been in existence since pre-independence era. The Sanskrit word Jimha,
which means crooked was used in ancient Hindu law text in the sense of µtortious of fraudulent
conduct. However, under the Hindu law and the Muslim law, tort had a much narrower
conception than the tort of the English law. The punishment of crimes in these systems occupied
a more prominent place than compensation for wrongs. The law of torts in India presently, is
mainly the English law of torts which itself is based on the principles of the common law of
England. However the Indian courts before applying any rule of English law can see whether it is
suited to the Indian society and circumstances. The application of the English law in India has
therefore been a selective application.

In this context, in ã

ã



 , Justice Bhagwati observed-

³We have to evolve new principles and lay down new norms which will adequately deal with
new problems which arise in a highly industrialized economy. We cannot allow our judicial
thinking to be constructed by reference to the law as it prevails in England or for the matter of
that in any foreign country. We are certainly prepared to receive light from whatever source it
comes but we have to build our own jurisprudence.´

During British rule, courts in India were enjoined by Acts of Parliament in the UK and by Indian
enactments to act according to justice, equity and good conscience if there was no specific rule
of enacted law applicable to the dispute in a suit. In regard to suits for damages for torts, courts
followed the English common law insofar as it was consonant with justice, equity and good
conscience. They departed from it when any of its rules appeared unreasonable and unsuitable to
Indian conditions. An English statute dealing with tort law is not by its own force applicable to
India but may be followed here unless it is not accepted for the reason just mentioned.

 123'#  &

#

Litigation resulted from the massive leakage of a cloud of methyl isocyanate, estimated to have
caused 2,000 immediate deaths, 8,000 subsequent deaths and 300,000 injuries.

As in all product liability claims, three grounds for suit may be utilized in toxic tort litigation:

Negligence

Breach of warranty

Strict product liability

Regardless of which ground is used, the issue to be resolved by the fact finder at trial, whether it
be a judge or a jury, is whether the conduct of the defendant in the way it used a chemical,
mineral or other harmful product was unreasonably dangerous and thereby caused injury to the
plaintiff or a group of plaintiffs. The primary issues in such cases will be the conduct of the
defendant, the dangers known to exist at the time the defendant engaged in the conduct of which
it is accused and the causal relationship of the offending agent to the plaintiff's injuries. Toxic
tort claims rely heavily upon the use of expert witnesses on all of these issues.

Ashcraft & Gerel had been involved in most of the modern toxic tort litigation, including, but not
limited to asbestos litigation, Agent Orange litigation, the Bhopal litigation, atomic radiation
litigation, and heavy metal litigation. These claims involve not only expertise, but an enormous
expenditure of economic resources and manpower, all of which are necessary to confront the
corporations responsible for the injuries sustained by toxic tort victims.



#$"

Ö





















 












 













 



























  ! Sahai. J.

The observation made by Hon¶ble Sahai.J dispels any illusions as to the necessity of the law of
torts. His observations also envisage the growth of tort litigation in India. To fully asses the role
played by tort law in a modern society, it would be instructive to turn to the history England
during the last three centuries. This is for two reasons firstly, tort litigation in England has grown
significantly, making it an interesting study and secondly, the law of torts in India has been
largely borrowed from the English law of torts.

The outstanding fact of England¶s legal history relevant to the present context is the growth of
her own tort law from small beginnings to the size and status of a separate branch of law. This
was the work of her lawyers and judges who developed the action for damages as a remedy for
violations of rights and duties and fashioned it as an instrument for making people adhere to
standards of reasonable behaviour and to respect the rights and interests of one another.

As a result, the English people benefited by the cultivation of habits of thought and conduct
which helps social peace and co-operative effort, inculcated a live sense of individual rights
which they do not hesitate to ascertain in courts of law. The necessary corollary of this is the
formulation of a large body of rules defining in detail the rights of the individual in relation to
others and the conditions in which he can assert them in a court of law. So we have a body of law
whose rules have grown and are constantly growing in response to new concepts of rights and
duty and new needs and conditions.
If it is true to say that the English people attained during this period, a degree of social unity and
integration enabling them to achieve phenomenal success in various aspects of their life, activity
and welfare, it is difficult to resist the inference that among the many forces and influences that
made this possible, was the development of their system of law and justice so as to afford
security to the citizen in his life, person, property and rights and interests which he values. An
integral and important part of this system is tort law

Evidence of its importance is afforded by the large and growing volume of litigation and case
law in actions for torts of various kinds and in particular those of defamation, negligence and
nuisance. In deciding these actions English judges and juries have tried to make their decisions
sub-serve the purposes already stated. They have taken care to allow claims only when they are
just and make their awards of damages serve, on the one hand as a deterrent of wrong doing and
on the other, afford satisfaction to parties suffering from injury or loss. The views here stated
find support in the almost whole sale adoption of tort law of England along with her other laws
by progressive nations like those of the U.S.A, Canada and Australia.

Though we have done likewise in borrowing the English law of tort, we have to make a far
greater use of it than we do now for making it serve the purposes for which the people of other
countries aforesaid have used it. The use made of it in these countries in evidenced not only by
the case law in their courts but also by the continual interest evinced by their lawyers, judges and
professors in the development of this branch of law by means of their contributions to the
growing volume of literature on it.

It is undeniable that we cannot afford to neglect any agency which can help to regulate individual
conduct in conformity with the needs of social peace and contentment which are the basic factors
on which our plans of national advancement can rest. It is hardly necessary to add that while
adopting English rules and theories, we have to make alterations and adaptations of them which
are demanded by conditions in India as observed by various Indian Judges and also take note of
the great changes in this branch of law that are taking place elsewhere.

Therefore it is unnecessary to state that, there is absolutely no scope of doing away with this
branch of law. Some may argue that the law of torts merely plays merely a role of a residuary
law. However bearing in mind the facts above mentioned it is clear that there is no truth in this
argument.


&"(4#

The next logical progression would be to determine whether tort law has been simply
overlooked. The development of the absolute liability rule in the M.C. Mehta case and the
Supreme Court¶s direction on Multinational corporation Liability, recognition of Governmental
tort by employees of government, principles on legality of State, evolution of tort of sexual
harassment, grant of interim compensation to a rape victim, and award of damages for violation
of human rights under writ jurisdiction, including a recent Rs.20 crore exemplary damages in the
Upahaar Theatre fire tragedy case by the Delhi High Court are significant changes in the tort law
of India, which affords a preliminary answer that tort law has not been overlooked.

There have been a number of enactments such as the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991,
Environment Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Human Rights Protection
Act, 1998, Pre-Natal Diagnostics Techniques Regulations and Prevention of Misuse Act, 1994,
embodying the new principles of tortious liability in India. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and
judicial interpretation continue to contribute to development of accident jurisprudence. The
unfortunate Bhopal Gas Leak disaster has triggered a new path of tort jurisprudence, leading to
environment tort, toxic torts, governmental torts, MNCs liability, congenital torts, stricter
absolute liability, etc. Still the Indian Law Reports furnish in this respect a striking contrast to the
number of tort cases before the Courts.

While most branches of law, eg, crimes, contracts, property, trusts, etc, have been codified, it is
interesting to observe that there is yet no code for torts in India. Most of the development in tort
law is the contribution of the Indian Judges and lawyers. Though recommendations for an
enactment on tort law were made as early as in 1886 by Sir F Pollock, who prepared a bill known
as the µIndian Civil Wrongs Bill¶ at the instance of the Government of India, it was never taken
up for legislation.

Undoubtedly a code is useful, but it is well to recognise that this branch of law is still in the
process of growth and while it would be difficult to prepare a code, it would not also help a
proper development of the law to do so. Lack of a code for the law of torts acts as a deterring
factor for it to branch out as a favoured form of litigation. The growth of tort law in India does
not even compare to other progressive countries which have put it to much better use as
discussed previously.

Acknowledging the fact that a code on torts would be premature for the reasons aforementioned,
it would perhaps be wiser to start with enactments on particular topics on which the case-law in
India is unsatisfactory and has to be rectified. One of the first recommendations for legislation
made by the Law Commission appointed by the Government of India is on the subject of liability
of the government for torts of its servants.

Recently the National Commission for Review of Working of Constitution (NCRWC) also
recommended a law to give liability of state for torts of its employees in the report of the
commission headed by MN Venkatachaliah CJ (2002).

One the other hand the reason why an Indian code on this branch of law is premature is that there
is very little tort litigation in our courts and there have not been sufficient opportunities for
applying principles evolved elsewhere or evolving principles appropriate to Indian conditions. At
present it is a singular circumstance that very few cases of torts go before the Indian courts.
However this proves to be a Catch 22 situation as until there is a code for the law of torts not
many people will prefer to go to the courts for cases involving torts, as they would not be sure of
its outcome.


 c5

ã  ã( 
#)#4


 c3





The law of torts in India is definitely not unnecessary but merely requires enactments to make it
more ascertainable. Failure of aggrieved persons to assert their legal rights is perhaps to be
ascribed not merely to insufficient appreciation of such rights but to other causes as well, e.g.,
difficulties in proving claims and obtaining trustworthy testimony, high court fees, delay of
courts. The elimination of difficulties which obstruct aggrieved parties in seeking or obtaining
remedies which the law provides for them is a matter which is worthy of consideration. If these
lacunae are removed, India could also witness a growth in tort litigation.