JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

New Delhi -110025

Law Of torts -Assingnment

Topic

New and emergent torts

Name : Dheeraj yadav

Student id : 202101424(R)
Course : BA.L.L.B (hons) Self financed
Semester : 1 st (2021-26)
Roll no. : 08
Submitted To -
( Miss Varsha Gulaya )
 Table of contents

1. Introduction

2. Defination of torts

3. Emerging trends

5). strict libility

6). Absolute libility

7). Evolution of absolute libility

8). landmark judgement

 Introduction
Tort means an act or omission which give rise to injury or harm to the
others and amounts to civil wrongs for which court imposses liablity.
here injury implies to invasion of any legal right where harm describe
damages or detriments in the fact that individual suffers .
the main motto of law of torts is to give relief to the person suffers
which are caused by others from their wrongfull acts it can shift
burden of loss from injured party to the other party who at fault
typically.

Meaning by diffrent thinkers

According to salmond " tort is civil wrong for which remedy is common
law action for unliquidated damages and which is not exclusively a
breach of contract or breach of trust or other merely equitable
obligation ".

pollock's contribution to the defination of tort is an act or omission not

merely the breach of duty arising out of personal relation or
undertaken by a contract which is related to harm suffered by
determinate person giving rise to civil remedy which is not action of
contract.
New and emergent trend

the law of tort is part of common which developed incrementally since

norman times . academics are not agreed whether there is law of tort
or law of torts . a law of torts implies some general common rules
relevant to all parts of law . a law of torts recognises that there are
various seperate distinct aspects but also implies that separate parts
have something in common . it is a nice subject for a debate but a little
practical importance . although some modern torts have been created
by statue , the is still generally to be found in common law principals .
the origin of torts can be traced back to fourteenth centuary when the
word trespass was given much wider legal meaning than it has today . it
is originally referred to any direct and forcible injury to the person land
and property . trespass was one of two medieval forms of action the
second being trespass on the case or or simply case . case covered
injury which was consequential for wrong but the wrong was neither
forcible nor direct. the distinction can still be seen in law of torts today
- torts is actionable per se i.e. without proof of damage such as trespass
to land and trespass to person generally originate from old form of
trespass while those torts which require proof of damage for example
negligence and nuisance generally come from case . some of new torts
which evolved with time are mentioned below.
Rule of strict liability

it implies person who for his own purpose brings dangerous thing on
his land and keep there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must
keep it at his peril and if he does not do so is prima facie answerable for
all the damage which is natural consequence of its escape he can
excuse himself by that the escape was owing to plaintiff default or
perhaps the escape was consequence of vis major or act of god but
nothing of sort exist here it is unnecessary to enquire what excuse will
be sufficient .

for application of this rule three essential should be there

1) some dangerous thing must be brought by the person
2) the thing thus brought must be kept by a person on his land must
escape
3) it must be non natural use of land

however some exception are there

1) plaintiff own default

2) act of god

3) consent of plaintiff

4) act of third party

5) statutory authority
Absolute liability
this concept of absolute liability evolved in india after the landmark
judgment of mc mehta vs. union of india popularly known as oleum
gas leak case the case was based on strict liability but there were no
exception to come out of it this rule come up for giving punishment to
wrongdoer who has caused injury and by dealing with hazardeous
substance without proper care and caution but they would differ in
cases of providing relaxation.

Evolution of absolute liablity

The standard of outright risk has developed because of the old rule and
it can't be applied in Indian Law Perspective as it is unseemly for the
explanation on the grounds that its advancement is a result of high
modern development, farming utilization of land and so on We as a
whole realize that India is an agricultural nation and with that, it is a
creating economy as well and the convention of severe obligation is an
extremely old rule. The old rule advanced when there was low or
restricted extension for modern improvement contrasted with the
present situation which high in modern development in the country.
The extent of the standard of outright obligation is exceptionally wide
in the entirety of its perspectives when contrasted and the old rule. As
it doesn't have any special case laid under it in the new rule. It covers
public carelessness or shortcoming as well as covers even the individual
wounds caused because of the unfortunate behavior of the neighbor.
Presently it covers the person who possesses the land as well as makes
individuals responsible who isn't the proprietor of the land. Outright
Liability has been raised on account of M.C Mehta versus Union of
India[5] likewise this is one of the milestone judgment in India's
legitimate history. The standard which was set down after this case was
that any endeavor which is occupied with any sort of risky or innately
hazardous material which on the off chance that there may bring about
any sort of mischief, the venture would be totally responsible to
remunerate to every one individuals who are impacted by equivalent to
it likewise occurred in Bhopal Gas Tragedy case.

landmark judgements
Reylands vs. fletcher

The plaintiff was Thomas Fletcher and the defendant’s was John
Rhylands. In the circumstances, the defendant had constructed a
reservoir on land that was on leasehold, whose purpose was to
supply water into his powered textile mill. Thomas Fletcher’s land
neighbored that of Rhylands. In his land, Fletcher operated mines
and had excavated up to disused mines which were under the
land where the plaintiff’s reservoir was located. The land that both
parties were using had been rented from lord Wilton and the
“activities that each carried out were legal”. Rhylands employed
independent contractors and engineers to build a reservoir.

When on duty the contractors came across some mine shafts that
were no longer in use and which were loosely filled with marl and
earth. The contractors “made no attempt” to fix the shafts. These
shafts led through a series of interconnected shafts and channels,
into the plaintiff’s (Fletcher) mines and land. After completion,
water burst and flooded into Fletcher’s land and mines. In those
circumstances, Thomas Fletcher sued John Rhylands.

Mc mehta vs union of india

The primary inquiry considered for this situation was whether the
mining action in region upto 5 kms from the Delhi-Haryana verge on the
Haryana side of the edge and furthermore in the Aravalli slopes causes
ecological debasement and what bearings are expected to be given. So
as to screen the general reclamation endeavors in the Aravalli slopes
and to offer specialized help to the executing associations and
furthermore to screen execution of suggestions contained in reports
alluded to in the judgment, a Monitoring Committee was comprised.
The Monitoring Committee was coordinated to assess the mines being
referred to in the said case and record a report, bury alia, containing
ideas for recommencement of mining in individual cases. It was
additionally coordinated that the Aravalli slope range must be
safeguarded at any expense. In the event that in spite of severe
condition, there is an unfriendly irreversible impact on the nature in the
Aravalli slope range region, sometime in the future, the all out
stoppage of mining movement in the space might need to be thought
of. For comparative reasons such advance might need to be considered
in regard of mining in Faridabad District too. Since the heading was in
regard of mining in Gurgaon region, this perception in regard of mining
in Faridabad locale was made.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1) rk bangia law of torts

2) scc online

3) india kanoon

4) reylands vs fletcher

5) mc mehta vs. union of india

6) avtar singh law of torts