Tort Law

Ch-1) Definition and Nature of Tort

 Tort: English word for wrong and derived from latin word
tortum meaning twisted or crooked.
 Plaintiff is the one who brings legal action in the court and
defendant is the one being sued.
 The writs of trespass gave remedy to direct and immediate
injury to land, goods or person.
 Writ of trespass on the case game remedy for undirect or
consequential injuries.
 Limitations Act of 1961 states that “Tort is a civil wrong which is
not a breach of contract or trust.
 Salmond defines Tort Law as: - Tort is a civil wrong for which
remedy is common law for unliquidated damages (No fixed
amount)
 Winfield defines Tort Law as: - Tortious Law arises from breach
of duty fixed by law. This duty is usually towards the general
public.
 Tort is a civil wrong and every civil wrong is not a tort.
 Can be done against a person or a group of persons.
 Difference between tort and breach of contract?
 The breach of duty: Tort- failing to follow something
stated by the law. Duty is towards everyone in the
society, Contract- breach of contract by one of the
parties. Duty is towards a particular individual.
Donoghue Stevenson
 Damages;- Compensation is unliquidated in case of tort
damages are unliquidated in case of contract damages.
 Difference between tort and crime
 1) Seriousness of crime: Wrongs which are more serious
are called crime and wrongs which are less serious are
labelled as civil wrong.
2) Filing of case; Injured party will file a case as a plaintiff.
In case of crime the public at large will file a case.
3) Compensation in tort and punishment in case of crime.
 Essential of tort
1) Injuria sine damnum (is a tort) (refer
bhim singh v state of J&K and ashby v
white)
 Infringement of right given by the law to the plaintiff is
called Injuria
 Sine means without
 Damnum means substantial harm damage with respect to
money, health etc.
 There are 2 types of tort
1) Actionable tort are those where there is no proof of
damage or loss. Eg trespass.
2) Torts which are actionable only on the proof of some
damage caused by an act.
2) Damnum sine injuria (not a tort)
 Damage happened without violation of any legal
right.

4th Oct 2022

 Justification in torts or defenses in torts
1) Volenti non fit injuria/defense of consent
When a person consents to infliction of some harm upon
himself he will have no remedy in this tort.
ESSENTIALS OF TORT
1) Plaintiff has knowledge of risk
 2) The plaintiff with knowledge of this risk has voluntarily
agreed to suffer the harm.
Refer case hall v brooksland club and wooldrige v sumner
1962 case.
Smith v baker and sons 1891 when he knew about the risk but
consent was not given.
Limitation in the scope of volenti non fit injuria
1) Rescue of case
2) Illegal acts or negligence of the defendant
3) Negligence of defendant
2) Plaintiff the wrong doer (pg 45)
 Plaintiff was wrong.
 Legal maxim Is: - Ex turpi causa non oritur action which means
from an illegal activity no action arises
 It is doubtful whether the defendant can take such a defence
under the law of torts and escape liability by pleading that at
the time of the defendant’s wrongful act, the plaintiff was also
engaged in doing somethings wrongful.
 In Bird v Holbrook case the plaintiff, a trespasser over the
defendant’s land was entitled to claim compensation for injury
caused by a spring gun set by the defendant, without notice, in
his garden.

11th oct 2022

3) Inevitable accidents
 Refers to some sort of event or action that could not have
been avoided even with all necessary care and precautions
taken from the side of wrongdoer.
According to Pollock, it does not mean absolutely
inevitable, but it means not avoidable by any such
 precautions as a reasonable man, doing such an act then and
there, could be expected to take.
Essentials of Inevitable accidents
1) Damage was unintentional
2) The circumstances surrounding the damage could not
have been avoided by the person despite all care, caution as
well as skill that could have been employed by the person
who committed the wrong.
Refer to Stanley vs Powell 1891 pg 46
4) Private defense
1) Law permits using of reasonable force to protect ourself or
family or property.
Essentials of private defense
(a)Imminent threat or danger
(b) Proportional force
Refer to Ramanuja Mudali (P) v
M. gangan (D) pg. 51

5) Necessity
Act like to cause harm done without criminal intent to
prevent a greater evil.

Necessity is different from inevitable accident because in necessity

the harm is the intended one whereas in inevitable accident the
harm is done in good faith to avoid a harm.

There is infliction of harm on an innocent person in necessity

whereas in pvt defense harm is caused to plaintiff who himself is a
wrongdoer.

 Essentials
1) An act likely to cause harm
2) Harm done without criminal intention
3) To prevent the other harm

6) Act of God
The act occurred exclusively by violence of nature without
the interference of human agencies.
Essentials
(a)There must be working of natural forces without the
intervention of any human agency.
(b) The occurrence must be extraordinary and not one
which can be anticipated.

28th oct 2022

 Statutory authority Act
Section 1 of judicial officer’s protection act of 1860 says
that no judge, magistrate, justice of peace or collector or
other person acting judicially shall be liable to be sued in
any civil court for any act done or ordered to be done by
him in discharge of his judicial duty, whether or not within
the limits of his jurisdiction provided that he is at the time
in good faith believed himself to have jurisdiction to do or
order the act complained of
Anwar Hussain v Ajay Kumar (AIR 1965) SC 9651
Stump v Sparkman
Sirros v Morre 1975

Quasi-judicial authority
1) Quasi-judicial: dictionary meaning having a partly
judicial character by possession of the right to hold
hearing on and conducting investigation into disputed
claims and alleged Infractions of rules and regulations
and to make decisions in the journal manner of court.
 Eg national human rights commission, Inclome tax
tribunal, national consumer disputes redressal
commission, railway claims tribunal.
Tampaison v Anderson
2) Parental authority: Using a reasonable force to correct
a child.

1st nov 2022

 Remedies in Tort
1. Judicial remedies: - these remedies are provided by the
court to the agreed party. Are of 3 types: -
a. Damages: - Money paid to the agreed party to bring back in
position before the tort occurred. Basically, help them to
recover from the loss they have suffered. They are of various
kinds
 Nominal: - Legal right that was violated. Constantine v
Imperial London Hotels LTD, he defendants wrongfully
refused to accommodate the plaintiff, a famous West
Indian cricketer, in one of their hotels, where the plaintiff
wished to stay. The defendants provided him with lodging
in another of their hotels. It was held that the plaintiff was
entitled to nominal damages of five guineas.
 Compensatory, aggravated and exemplary damages: -
Compensate the injured party for the loss.
b. Injunctions: - An injunction is an order of the court directing
the doing of some act or restraining the commission or
continuance of some act. They are of various kinds
Temporary and perpetual injunction: - These have been defined
in Sec. 37, Specific Relief Act, 1963 as follows:
 (1) A temporary injunction is such as is to continue until a
specified time, or until the further orders of the court. Granted
before the case has been heard on merits and are provisional.
(2) A perpetual injunction is one by which the defendant is
perpetually enjoined from the assertion of a right, or from the
commission of an act, which could be contrary to the right of
the plaintiff.
Mandatory injunction is an order that requires the defendant
to do some positive act. for example, an order to pull down a
wall which causes obstruction to the plaintiff’s right of light.
‘You should not construct the wall’ is a prohibitory injunction
and ‘You should demolish the wall’ is a mandatory injunction.
c. Specific restitution of property
2. Extra judicial remedy: - Self-help before going to the court
Expulsion of trespasser: - A person can use reasonable force
to expel a person a trespasser from his property.
Re-entry on land: - Owner of property can remove the
trespasser and re-enter his property by using reasonable amt of
force. Basically, this means recapture of your own goods.
Abatement of nuisance: - Person can remove the object
causing nuisance because that particular thing is causing
inconvenience or is very annoying. For example, I may cut the
branches or the roots of my neighbour’s trees which have
escaped to my land.
Distress damage feassant:- If a man finds a cattle of another
on his land causing damage (unlawfully), he may seize or detain
him, in order to set compensation from the owner for the
damage and return the cattle.

7th nov 2022

 Module 2: - Specific torts Tort against person,
property and economy.

1) Tort against person: -

 Battery: - Consists of intentional application of
force to another person without any lawful
justification.
 Essentials of Battery: -
There should be us of force
Intentional
Same should be without any lawful
justification.
 Assault: - Defined as intentionally putting another
person in a reasonable apprehension of an
imminent harmful and offensive contact.
 Act of the defendant which causes to the plaintiff
reasonable apprehension of the infliction of a
battery on him by the defendant.
 Personal injury is not required in assault.
 It has 3 components: -
1) The defendants act
2) The defendant’s intent to cause victim to
apprehend imminent harmful contact from the
defendant. (Samne vale ne darr bithaya)
3) The defendants action causes the victim to
reasonable apprehend such a contact. (Samne
vala darr gya)
 Eg, Showing a fist
 False imprisonment: - Consists in an imposition of a total
restraint for some period, however short, upon the liberty of
another without sufficient lawful justification. It applies to pvt
or govt agencies
  Essentials: - There should be total restrain on the liberty of a
person, it should be without lawful justification.
 Bird v jones 1845 part od public footway was enclosed by
defended, entry to it was allowed only to the people who made
the pavement
 Mee v Cruikshank 1902
 Unlawful detention: - Rudraksha v state of Bihar AIR 1983
Remedies: He can always bring an action to claim damages,
Self-help: - He is still under detention. Cn use reasonable force
to non-detention himself. Writ of habeas corpus:
 Malicious prosecution: - Occurs when one party knowingly and
with malicious intention initiate a baseless litigation against the
other party. Can include both criminal and civil charges.
Riegel v hygrate seed corporation
Balbandar singh v badri shah
1) He was prosecuted by the defendant
2) The prosecution was instituted without any reasonable or
probable cause
3) Defendant acted maliciously and not with a mere intention
of carrying the law into effect
4) The proceedings complained of terminated in favor of
plaintiff
5) The plaintiff suffered damage as a result of prosecution.

Torts against property

Economic tort

25th nov 2022

 Defamation: - Harming of reputation of a person by saying
something which is not true.
Act of communicating false statement about a person that
injure the reputation of that person when observed through
the eye of ordinary man any false and unprivileged statement
published or spoken deliberately, intentionally, knowingly with
the intention to damage someone’s reputation is defamation
Divided into 2 parts: -
Slander: -
Libel: Representation of defamatory statement made in a
permanent form i.e., written, image or printing. It is already
actionable per se
Difference between liable and slander
Libel is addressed to the eyes it is a written. It is per se
infringement of right. Slander is addressed to ear
Youssoupoff vs MGM
Defamation under English law and Indian law difference
Slander in eng law does not some under tort law
Indian law both slander and libel both come under defamation.
Essentials
1) Statement must be defamatory
2) The said statement must be referred to the plaintiff
3) The statement must be published

Innuendo: A statement is prima facie defamatory when its

natural and obvious meaning leads to that conclusion.
Sometimes it may happen that the statement was prima facie
innocent but because of some secondary meaning, it may be
considered to be defamatory. For this secondary instance
plaintiff must prove the secondary meaning i.e., innuendo
which makes the statement defamatory.
Hulton corpotration v jones
 Defenses in defamation

1) Truth

Truth is the most important defence or justification for defamation.

This is because only false statements against a person constitute
defamation. Hence, if the person making the statements proves them
to be true, he can escape liability. However, this defence might not
apply in criminal proceedings for defamation.

2) Fair and bona fide comment

The defendant in a claim of defamation can take the defence of

making a fair and bona fide comment. Thus, making fair and
reasonable criticism without any malicious intention does not amount
to defamation. For example, making statements against
maladministration by a government’s cabinet minister might not
amount to defamation.

It has 2 main essentials

1) It must be a comment

2) It must be fair and in public interest

The defendant, in this case, needs to prove that he did not possess
mala fine intentions. He must also justify his statements by showing
how he had fair or bona fide intentions.

3) Privilege
The law sometimes grants certain privileges to particular persons in
some situations. Any statements by a person enjoying such privileges
cannot amount to defamation.

For example, a member of parliament has an absolute privilege for any

statements he makes in Parliament. The constitution grants complete
immunity from prosecution for defamation for such statements. Such
privileges sometimes exist in judicial proceedings as well.

4) Apology

In case the person who makes a defamatory remark later issues an

apology, he can escape liability of compensation. For this defence, the
person suffering the tort of defamation must accept the apology.

5) Amends

Under English law, amends are justifiable defences for defamation.

Amends mean correction or retraction of the defamatory statements
by the defendant. For example, a newspaper making a false statement
against a person may issue a clarification later.

Nuisance

As a tort means an unlawful interference with a person use or

enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it.

Can be defined as an act which gives rise to unlawful and unwanted

and unreasonable annoyance or discomfort to the plaintiff and which
results in damage to the property of the plaintiff or interference with
his use and enjoyment

Module 3: Negligence and nervous shock

Negligence is a civil tort which occurs when a person breaches his
duty of care towards the other person.
Essentials of negligence
1) Duty of care to the plaintiff
2) Defendant made a breach of that duty
3) Defendants breach caused the injury: causation
4) Damage: As a result of the act caused by the plaintiff
Donoghue v Stevenson 1932: Snail in the ginger beer. Donoghue
suffered nervous shock but he did not sue the café owner instead on
the manufacturer.
Res ipsa loquitor

1) Rule of Strict liability (Rylance v fletcher rule)

Under the strict liability rule, the law makes people pay
compensation for damages even if they are not at fault. In other
words, people have to pay compensation to victims even if they took
all the necessary precautions.

In Rylands v. Fletcher case, the defendant got a reservoir

constructed through independent contractor. There were old unused
shafts under the site of the reservoir, which the contractors failed to
observe and so did not block them. When the water was filled in the
reservoir, it burst through the shafts and flooded the plaintiff's coal
mines on adjoining land.

Essentials of Strict Liability

For the application of the rule, the following three essentials should
be there:

1) Dangerous Things
According to this rule, the liability for the escape of thing from one's
land arises only when the thing collected was a dangerous thing. In
Rylands v. Fletcher, the thing was large water body (reservoir).

2) Escape

For the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher to apply, it is also essential that the
thing causing the damage must escape to the area outside the
occupation and control of the defendant. The case of Read v. Lyons
and Co, is an example of no escape and hence no liability. In this
case, the plaintiff (Read) was an employee in the defendant's
ammunition factory, while she was performing her duties inside the
defendant's remises, a shell, which was being manufactured there,
exploded and she was injured. There was no evidence of negligence
on the part of defendant. It was held that the defendant was not
liable because there was no escape of thing outside the defendant's
premises. So, the rule of Rylands v. Fletcher did not apply to this
case.

3) Non-natural Use of Land

There should be non-natural usage of land to make the defendant

liable. Like in Rylands v. Fletcher case, collecting large body of water
is considered to be non-natural use of land.

Exceptions to Strict Liability

The strict liability rule does not apply in cases involving the following
exceptions:
1) Act of God

An act of God is a sudden, direct and irresistible act of nature that

nobody can reasonably prepare for. It can cause damage regardless of
how many precautions one may take. For example, tsunamis,
tornadoes, earthquakes, extraordinary rainfall, etc. are acts of God.
Any damage that occurs due to these acts does not attract strict
liability.

2) Wrongful act of a third party

Sometimes, the involvement of third parties may be the cause of

damages. For example, renovation work in one flat may cause some
nuisance to another flat. Here, the tenant affected by the nuisance
cannot sue his landlord. He can only sue the person renovating the
other flat.

3) Plaintiff’s own fault

In several instances, the plaintiff may himself be at fault for the

damage he suffers. In such cases, he cannot shift liability on some
other person regardless of how much he suffers.

Absolute liability

The rule of absolute liability, in simple words, can be defined as

the rule of strict liability minus the exception.
The rule of absolute liability evolved in the case of MC Mehta v.
Union of India Bhopal gas tragedy case AIR 1987 SC 1086.

Bhopal Gas Tragedy

This rule was upheld in the infamous Bhopal Gas Tragedy which took
place between the night of 2nd and 3rd December, 1984. Leakage of
'Methyl Isocyanate' poisonous gas from the Union Carbide Company
in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh led to a major disaster. Over three
thousand people lost their lives. There was heavy loss to property,
flora and fauna. A case was filed in the American New York District
Court as the Union Carbide Company in Bhopal was a branch of the
US based Union Carbide Company. The case was dismissed owing to
no jurisdiction. The Government of India enacted the Bhopal Gas
Disaster Act, 1985 and sued the company for damages on behalf of
the victims. The court applying the principle of Absolute Liability
held the company liable and ordered it to pay compensation to
victims.

Essentials/ rules of absolute liability

1) It will apply to hazardous and inherently dangerous activity.

2) Escape of dangerous thing from one’s own land is not necessary.

3) No exception

4) Applies to non-natural and natural use of land.

5) Extent of damages
Vicarious Liability

Module 5: Consumer protection Act 2019

  Aims and objectives of COPRA
1) To provide protection against exploitation.
2) To provide safety against hazardous product.
3) To establish redressal forums.
4) To provide simple and speedy machinery
5) To protect E-commerce sector.
6) To provide right to redressal.
7) Right to choose
8) To promote and sustain competition in the markets

Empowering consumer to make sure that their rights are

protected
Section 3: - To establish control consumer protection counsel
(By central govt)
Objective
1) Render advice or promotion

Name and address of complainants

Date on which the good/services were availed

Caveat emptor means let the buyer be aware. Age old

principle applied to goods and services
Caveat venditor means let the seller be aware