LAW OF TORTS
Q. What is the meaning of the word “Tort”?
The Tort is of French origin. The root is ‘Tortum’ in Latin which
means ‘twist’. It implies a conduct which is ‘tortious’ , or, twisted..
The equivalent word in English is “Wrong”.
B. DEFINITION OF TORT:
SALMOND’s Definition:
• Tort is a civil wrong
• for which the remedy is a common law action for unliquidated damages, and
• which is NOT exclusively the breach of a contract, or, the breach of a trust,
or, other merely equitable obligation.
CIVIL WRONGS
Breach of
TORTS
contract
Breach of
Trust
WINFIELD’s Definition:
‘TortIous liability’ arises from the breach of duty primarily fixed by
law. This duty is towards persons generally and its breach is
redressible by an action for unliquidated damages.
Limitation Act 1963
Sec 2 (m) of the Limitation Act 1963 defines “Tort means a civil
wrong which is not exclusively a breach of contract or trust.” This
is quite similar to Salmond’s definition.
PROBLEMS OF THE DEFINITIONS -
Discuss and make notes as you see
Q. Is it the law of Tort or The Law of Torts?
Or more specifically
A. Is it the law of Tort, i.e., every wrongful act for which there is no
justification or excuse is treated as a tort?(WINFIELD)
B. Is it the law of Torts, meaning only specific wrongs which the law
recognises and beyond which the liability cannot arise? (SALMOND)
Essentials of a Tort -
1. There must be some act or omission on the part of the Defendant
2. The act or omission must result in a legal damage(injuria), i.e.,
violation of legal rights vested in the plaintiff.
1. There must be some act or omission on the part of the Defendant -
In order to make a person liable under this,
He must have done something which he was not expected to do or
He must have omitted something which he was expected to do.
2. The act or omission must result in a legal injury.
When there is a violation of legal rights vested in the plaintiff, he can
approach the court of law. Now, this violation may or may not result
in any damage. It does not even matter to the courts if there is
damage or not(except for the calculation of damages).
It means that whether you suffer damage or not, you can still go to
the courts if there is a violation of legal right.
2 Maxims are given in this context -
1. Injuria sine damno - Injury without damage
2. Damnum sine injuria - Damage without injury
Injuria sine damno - Injury without damage
Ashby v White - The plaintiff was a qualified voter, but the defendant,
a returning officer refused to take the plaintiff ’s vote. No loss was
suffered to plaintiff as the same candidate won whom he wished to
vote, yet his legal right was violated by not allowing him to vote. Held
Liable.
Injuria sine damno - Injury without damage
Bhim Singh v State of J&K - the petitioner, an MLA had been
wrongfully detained by the Police officer while on his way to assembly.
He was paid Rs. 50,000/- as exemplary damages.
Damnum sine injuria - Damage without injury
Gloucester Grammar School case - the defendant set up a rival school
to which plaintiff suffered huge losses. Held, even. Though there was
damage, no violation of legal right had taken place.
Damnum sine injuria - Damage without injury
Action v Blundell - The defendants by digging a coalpit intercepted
the water which affected the plaintiff ’s well at a distance of about 1
mile. Held not liable.
Damnum sine injuria - Damage without injury
Action v Blundell - The defendants by digging a coalpit intercepted
the water which affected the plaintiff ’s well at a distance of about 1
mile. Held not liable.
Damnum sine injuria - Damage without injury
Seetharamayya v Mahalakshamma - the defendants tried to ward off
water from their lands by digging a trench as well as putting up a
bound on their lands. As a result, the rainwater now flowed onto the
lands of plaintiff causing huge damage. Held they were not liable as
one can protect one’s land by such acts even though it may affect
others.
Damnum sine injuria - Damage without injury
Bradford Corporation v Pickles - The House of Lords went a step
further and held that even though the act is done maliciously, no
action can lie if the plaintiff has not suffered any legal injury.
Damnum sine injuria - Damage without injury
Town Area Committee v Prabhu Dayal - The plaintiffs constructed 16
shops on the old foundations of a building, without obtaining
necessary permissions and orders. Municipality ordered the
demolition of such illegal construction. Plaintiffs alleged mala fide
intention on the part of defendants, but the court held that such
Demolition of illegal construction would not amount to legal injury.
