Table of Contents

Law of Torts Including Motor Vehicle Accidents and Consumer Protection Laws (LL.B. I Semester)
#

Unit-I: Nature of Law of Torts
#

Nature of Law of Torts
#

Torts are civil wrongs that cause harm or loss, leading to legal liability for the person committing the wrongful act (the tortfeasor).
Torts originated in Italy and were later developed in England. This branch of law consists of various laws where the wrongdoer violates some legal rights vested in another person. The law imposes a duty with respect to the legal rights vested in the members of society, and the person in breach of the duty is said to have done the wrongful act. This is recognized under the law of torts.
The law of tort in England grew through complicated procedures, i.e., on the basis of forms of action.

The nature of law of torts can be observed in the following:

Tort is a civil wrong
The basic nature of a civil wrong differs from a criminal wrong:
- In civil wrongs, the injured party institutes civil proceedings against the wrongdoer. The remedy is damages or compensation.
- In criminal wrongs, proceedings are initiated by the state, and the wrongdoer is punished.
- Some acts may result in two wrongs simultaneously, allowing both remedies (compensation and punishment).
Tort is other than a mere breach of contract or trust.
Tort is redressable by an action for unliquidated damages.

Definition of Tort
#

A tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, for which the remedy is a common law action for unliquidated damages.

Other Definitions:

Common Law Procedure Act 1852: “A wrong independent of contract.”
Fraser: “A tort is an infringement of a right in rem of a private individual giving a right of compensation at the suit of the individual party.”
Underhill:
“A tort is an act or omission which is unauthorized by law and independent of contract, which:
(i) Infringes either:
- (a) Some absolute right of another,
- (b) Some qualified right of another causing damage, or
- (c) Some public right resulting in some substantial or particular damage to some person beyond what is suffered by the public generally;

(ii) Gives rise to action for damages at the suit of the injured party.”
Salmond: “It is a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action for unliquidated damages which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or trust or other nearly equitable obligations.”
Winfield: “Tortious liability arises from breach of a duty primarily fixed by the law, and this duty is towards persons generally. Its breach is redressable by an action for unliquidated damages.”
- Key Terms Explained:
  - “Law is natural,” including rules like laws of gravity, ethics, morality, etc.
  - “Persons generally” refers to a duty owed to all people.
  - “Unliquidated damages” imply court-decided compensation amounts.

Note: The definitions by Salmond and Winfield are of paramount importance.

Essential Elements of a Tort
#

To constitute a tort, the following three conditions must be satisfied:

Act or Omission/Wrongful Act/Violation of Legal Right
- The defendant must commit a positive wrongful act or omit a duty.
- The wrongful act must be recognized by law. Social or moral wrongs do not constitute torts.
Example:
- Glasgow Corporation v. Taylor: Poisonous berries in a park led to a child’s death. The wrongful omission caused liability.
Legal Damage
- The plaintiff must prove a breach of legal duty or violation of a legal right.
- Damage refers to substantial loss, while damages are court-awarded compensations.
Maxims:
- Injuria Sine Damno: Legal injury without actual damage (actionable per se).
  Examples:
  - Ashby v. White (1703): Violation of the right to vote established the maxim Ubi jus, ibi remedium—“Where there is a right, there must be a remedy.”
  - Bhim Singh v. State of J&K (1986): Illegal detention violated Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution; compensation was awarded.
- Damnum Sine Injuria: Damage without legal injury (not actionable).
  Examples:
  - Gloucester Grammar School (1410): Competition caused economic loss but was lawful; no liability.
  - Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal (AIR 1970): No liability for demolishing unauthorized shops.
Legal Remedy
- A remedy redresses or corrects harm or loss.
- Without a remedy, a right becomes ineffective.

Development of Law of Torts in England and India
#

The Law of Torts developed through common law in England and was subsequently applied in India. It has been adapted to Indian conditions through judicial decisions.

Common Law: Judge-made law or judicial decisions/precedents. Common law is the substantive law for tortious liabilities.
- Natural Right leads to Natural Justice.
- Precedent: A judgment in a previous case.
- Injury: Any damage of any kind is an injury.
- Writ: Issued under the seal of the King.
  - Action on Trespass:
    - Trespass can involve land, property (movable and immovable), persons, etc.
      - Unauthorized Entry into someone’s land.
      - The person objecting must have legal rights.
      - No proof required, as it is a direct action.
  - Action on Trespass on the Case:
    - Actionable per se.
- Officina Brivium: Writ Shop - Cases were taken up and settled here.
- Legal Principles:
  - Ubi remedium ibi jus: “Where there is a remedy, there is justice.”
  - Ubi jus ibi remedium: “Where there is justice, there must be a remedy.”
  - Action on Assumpsit

Key Cases:
#

SCM UK Ltd v. Whittal and Sons (1971)
Loss of electricity without notice for seven hours led to compensation.
Grant v. Australian Knitting Mill Company (1936)
A person developed a skin condition due to wearing new underwear. The court held that the individual’s sensitivity negated liability for damages.
Collin v. Reinson (1754)
Without authority, a person affixed a nail on a wall using a ladder. When asked to remove it, he refused. The wall owner shook the ladder, causing the person to fall and sustain injuries. The court awarded damages due to excessive force by the wall owner.

Cases in India:
#

One of the earliest recommendations for legislation by the Law Commission of India concerned the liability of the government for the torts of its servants.
Adaptations in India consider changing social and economic conditions. Alterations in English rules are made as necessary.

Reasons for Lack of Tort Awareness in India:

Lack of consciousness.
High cost of litigation.
Undue delay in justice:
- Mrs. Shyam Sundar v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1974): A widow was dragged from trial court to Supreme Court for a mere Rs. 15,000.
Unsatisfactory attitude of courts:
- Vishnu Dutt v. Board of Higher Secondary Education (AIR 1981): A student wrongfully barred from exams due to attendance miscalculation was awarded compensation.
Low damages awarded:
- Subhash Chandra v. Ram Singh (AIR 1972): A minor with permanent disability was awarded Rs. 7,500 by the High Court after an initial trial award of Rs. 3,000.
Issues due to urbanization, industrialization, and scientific advancements:
- Bhopal Gas Tragedy
Rural influences like the Panchayat System.
Lack of codification of tort law.

Tort Distinguished from Crime and Breach of Contract
#

Tort vs. Crime
#

Tort: A private wrong; involves compensation for the aggrieved party.
Crime: A public wrong; involves punishment by the state.

Aspect	Tort	Crime
Duty Source	Fixed by operation of law.	Fixed by the state.
Duty Direction	Toward the public generally.	Toward the whole community.
Rights Affected	Civil rights of an individual considered as an individual.	Public rights and duties affecting the community as a whole.
Arising Cause	Independent of personal obligation or contract enactments.	Based on statutory enactments.
Consent	Not based on consent; inflicted against consent.	Not based on consent.
Privity	No privity between the parties.	No privity between the parties.
Right Breach	Breach of a right in rem (enforceable against the world).	Breach of rights against the whole world.
Consequence	Compensation based on magnitude and nature of the tort.	Punishment by the state (e.g., fine or imprisonment).
Motive	Rarely considered.	Often considered in punishment severity.
Proceedings	Raised by the injured party.	Conducted in the name of the state.
Type of Duty Breach	Breach of private duty.	Public wrong/offense.
Negligence	Mere negligence may result in tortious liability.	Negligence with criminal intent amounts to crime.

Tort vs. Breach of Contract
#

Torts arise from a breach of duty imposed by law, whereas a breach of contract arises from duties voluntarily agreed upon by the parties.

Aspect	Tort	Contract
Duty Source	Fixed by law.	Fixed by the parties themselves.
Privity	No privity of parties required.	Privity of parties is necessary.
Right Breach	Violation of a right in rem (enforceable against the world).	Breach of a right in personam (rights enforceable against a specific individual).
Damages	Unliquidated and uncertain in amount.	Liquidated and certain in amount.
Purpose	Concerned with losses; aims to allocate or prevent losses.	Concerned with promises; aims to ensure contractual promises are performed.
Foundation	Not founded upon consent.	Founded upon free consent of the parties.
Motive	Relevant only in specific torts (e.g., defamation, false imprisonment, libel).	Motive for breach is immaterial.
Codification	The law of torts is not codified.	The law of contracts is codified.
Duty Violated	General duty imposed by law, owed to the whole community.	Specific duty arising from contractual agreements owed to either party.

Example: Campbell v. Paddington Corp (1911): The plaintiff had a view of the street where a Royal procession was to pass, she planned to charge visitors a fee to allow them to have a great view of the procession. Paddington Corporation erected a stand obstructing her view. She sued in tort as it was causing her economic loss and also was a nuisance. The court held that Paddington Corp was liable and ordered to pay damages.

General Principles of Liability in Torts
#

Object: Torts is social engineering, any law typically allows an aggrieved to sue for those that particular section but torts are not like that wherein the damages are dependent on the loss incurred.

Scope: Governs actions for damages, injuries, or infringements of:
- Personal security.
- Property.
- Reputation.
Purpose: Adjust losses and compensate for injuries sustained due to another’s conduct.
Principles:
- Fault: Liability based on the fault or negligence of the tortfeasor.
- Wrongful Intent & Malice: Intent to harm or wrongful motive increases liability.
- Negligence: Failure to take proper care, resulting in harm.
- Strict Liability: Liability without proof of negligence (Rylands v. Fletcher).
- Statutory Liability: Governed by specific statutes.
Parties: Includes the tortfeasor (defendant) and the injured party (plaintiff).
Expansion of Tort Law:
- Rapid Industrialisation against manufacturers
- Advancement of Science and Technology
- Product liability
- Absence of Social Insurance
- Monopolistic enterprises
- Strict Liability

Meaning of Tort:
#

Derived from the Latin term tortum (to twist), a tort signifies conduct that is twisted, crooked, or unlawful. Analytically, tort law imposes obligations independently of agreements. Socially, it shifts the loss sustained by one person to the party deemed responsible, spreading losses across an enterprise or community.

History: Introduced into English law by Norman jurists. First use of “tort” appeared in Boulton v. Hardy (1597).

Categories of Misconduct:
#

Malfeasance - exists because it is a clear wrong and it is the improper performance which a person is supposed to do. Commission of some act which is unlawfully being done, such act is wholly wrongful because he had no right to do or which he had contracted not to do.
Misfeasance - is applicable to certain such acts which are done negligently unmindful of consequences or said to be improper performance.
Nonfeasance - it applies to the omission to perform. Some act, when there is no obligation to perform it. Nonfeasance of a gratuitous undertaking does not impose liability, but misfeasance does where there is a duty to the individual.

Breach of Trust
#

Trust is a branch of law of property under it, a person is called trustee, holds property in his name for the use and benefit of another person called ‘beneficiary’. When trustee misappropriates property, which he holds upon trust, for the beneficiary, the beneficiary can claim compensation. However, the compensation will usually be the value of the property concerned. It can be ascertained beforehand, and such damage claimed will be liquidated sum.

Distinction Between Torts and Trusts
#

Tort	Trust
Originates from common law.	Originates from the Court of Chancery/Equity.
Damages are unliquidated.	Damages are liquidated.
Motive is irrelevant in most torts.	Motive is relevant in trust matters.

Foundation of Tort Liability
#

Is it the Law of Tort or the Law of Torts?
#

There are two theories regarding the basic principles of liability:

Winfield (Torts)
- Unity/Wider Theory: All injuries done to another person are torts unless justified by law.
- Key Points:
  - Injuries multiplied mean actions must also be multiplied.
  - Supported by Frederick Pollock.
  - Law of torts includes all unjustifiable harms, even those without specific names (e.g., assault, battery).
- Case: Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Ground Ltd v. Taylor - The plaintiff operated a race course and charged for admission. The defendant, neighbour, set up a high structure to be able to watch the races and listen to the broadcast for no fee. The court held that it was legal and not a trespass or a nuisance to the plaintiff. There was no remedy for the plaintiff.
Salmond (Tort)
- Pigeon Hole/Narrow Theory:
  - Liability arises only if the wrong falls under one of the recognized torts.
  - Salmond states there is no general principle of liability.
  - Law of tort is a set of pigeon holes containing specific torts.
  - Compared to criminal law, which establishes specific offenses.
- Expanded by Dr. Jenks: Critics misunderstand the flexibility of the pigeon holes.

Mental Elements of Tortious Liability
#

Fault
The state of mind of the defendant is relevant to assess liability. Liability arises when the defendant’s conduct falls below the standard of a reasonable person, or care is not exercised in required circumstances.
- National Coal Board v. J. Evans & Co.:
  Strict liability applied for mining vibrations that damaged the plaintiff’s property, even though no negligence was proven.
- Holmes v. Mather:
  Defendant’s horse bolted uncontrollably, injuring the plaintiff. The court held it as an inevitable accident with no negligence, absolving the defendant of liability.
- Cope v. Sharp:
  Defendant set fire on plaintiff’s land to prevent a larger wildfire. The court upheld the defense of necessity, justifying the act to avoid greater harm.
No Fault Liability
Liability arises without wrongful intent or negligence, as seen in cases of strict or vicarious liability. Innocence and honest mistakes are not defenses under this principle.
- Consolidated Company v. Curtis (1892):
  Auctioneer sold goods without verifying ownership. The real owner sued for conversion, and the court held the auctioneer liable for failing due diligence.
- Vicarious liability: in vicarious liability also, a person maybe liable when he himself was not at fault e.g Master - servant, Principal - agent. E.g. Strict liability, absolute liability. Presently liability shifts to those shoulders who can bear it or those who can pass the loss on the public. In India as well as in England, various enactments such as Workman’s Compensation Act, Fatal Accidents Act, etc which provide compensation to the victim without the question of fault.
Malice
Malice indicates a bad motive behind a wrongful act. It is categorized as:
- Malice-in-Fact (Actual Malice):
  Acts done with ill will or evil motives toward another.
  - Bradford Corporation v. Pickle: Defendant acted lawfully but with malice, yet the court held that lawful acts cannot become wrongful due to bad motive.
  - Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal: Plaintiff suffered damages due to the defendant’s malicious interference with lawful rights.
- Malice-in-Law:
  Intentional wrongful acts without just cause or excuse.
  - Allen v. Flood: Defendant’s act was held lawful, as it lacked a direct intention to harm the plaintiff without lawful justification.
Wrongful Intention
This involves a desire to produce a harmful consequence. Courts infer intention from conduct and natural consequences of actions.
- Key Elements:
  1. a desire on his part to produce for injurious consequences
  2. an antecedent knowledge on the part of the defendant of the injurious consequence of his conduct.
Negligence
It is used in both subjective and objective sense. Subjectively, it refers to the state of mind of a person who fails to advert to the consequences of his conduct as a reasonable man would have done. Objectively, it refers to a failure to measure up to the standard of care required by law. The test has 3 aspects
- Tests of Negligence:
  1. From the fact proved and based only an indirect relations to the plaintiff’s state of mind on that score.
  2. The existence of carelessness is determined on the basis that the defendant’s conduct fell short of standard set by law, which is normally that of a reasonable man.
  3. The manner in which a reasonable man would have behaved is determined with reference to the consequences that such a man would have foreseen.

Capacity of Parties | Parties to the Proceedings
#

Who Cannot Sue
#

Convicts
- English Law:
  Under the Forfeiture Act of 1870, a convict serving an unexpired sentence could not sue for injury to property or recovery of debts.
  - Development: This disability was removed by the Criminal Justice Act of 1948. The courts remain the ultimate protectors of rights and liberties, but the rules of prison discipline and sentencing limit convicts’ freedom.
- Indian Law:
  Until 1921, some offenses led to the forfeiture of property, but this has now been abolished except in cases under Sections 121, 126, 127, and 169 of IPC.
  - A convict can sue for wrongs to their person or property unless the property is forfeited. They are entitled to fundamental rights under Article 21, subject to lawful restrictions.
Alien Enemy
- Definition: A person of enemy nationality or residing in or conducting business in enemy territory.
- English Law:
  An alien enemy cannot sue or maintain an action unless duly licensed, authorized by order in council, or entering British dominion under a flag of truce.
- Indian Law:
  In India, an alien enemy may sue only with permission from the Central Government under Section 83 of CPC.
Married Women
- English Law:
  Previously, married women faced procedural restrictions in suing. They could not sue or be sued for torts without their husbands joining as plaintiffs or defendants.
  - Legislative Developments:
    - Married Women’s Property Act, 1882.
    - Married Women and Tortfeasors Act, 1935.
    - Husband and Wife Act, 1962: Allowed spouses to sue each other as if unmarried.
    - Case: Smith v. Moss – Married women gained independent rights to sue.
- Indian Law:
  In India, marital matters are governed by personal laws, but women generally have the right to sue independently.
Corporations
- Intra Vires Acts: Corporations, as distinct legal entities, act through agents or servants. They can sue or be sued for acts like libel or other wrongs.
- Ultra Vires Acts: Acts beyond statutory limits or authority are not binding on corporations.
  - Case: Boulton v. L&SW Railways Co. – Corporations cannot be held liable for acts exceeding their authority.
Infants
- Minors are generally permitted to sue, but their capacity to be sued depends on the maturity required to commit specific torts (e.g., deceit, malicious prosecution).
  - Key Cases:
    - Manby v. Scott: A minor purchased goods on credit but failed to pay. The shopkeeper could not sue under contract law but succeeded under tort law.
    - Jennings v. Rundall: A minor negligently injured a hired horse. The court held the minor not liable.
    - Burnard v. Haggis: A minor hired a horse and lent it to a friend, who caused injury. The court ruled the minor was liable under tort law, not contract law.
Insolvents
- Insolvents lose the right to sue for property rights unless permitted by relevant bankruptcy or insolvency laws.
Foreign States
- Foreign states generally cannot sue unless authorized under treaties or international agreements.

Who Cannot Be Sued
#

Act of State
- Actions by sovereign powers against another state or its subjects cannot be questioned in municipal courts.
- Essentials:
  1. Done by representatives of the state.
  2. Injures another state or its subjects.
  3. Sanctioned or ratified by the state.
- Cases:
  - Buron v. Denman: The act of a naval officer in freeing slaves from a Spanish ship was held to be an act of state and thus immune from municipal court jurisdiction.
  - Secretary of State in Council of India v. Kamachee Boye: British officials’ actions under sovereign orders were upheld as acts of state.
  - Mighell v. Sultan of Jahore: The Sultan’s diplomatic immunity was upheld, preventing him from being sued.
Ambassadors
- Ambassadors are immune from being sued in tort, based on international principles. The remedy lies in diplomatic channels.
Infants or Minors
- Minors can be sued if sufficient maturity to commit specific torts is established.
- Cases:
  - Manby v. Scott: Minors could not be held liable under contract law but were liable under tort law.
  - Burnard v. Haggis: Minors can be sued under tort law for wrongful acts independent of contracts.

Quasi-Judicial Functions
#

Powers exercised without court or judge intervention must comply with natural justice principles:
- Audi Alteram Partem: Hear both sides.
- Nemo Debet Esse Judex In Propria Causa: No one should be a judge in their own case.
Natural justice ensures fairness and prevents miscarriage of justice, even when statutes are silent.

Unit-II: Defenses and Liability in Torts
#

General Defenses to an Action in Torts:

The rule of immunity which limits the rule of liability. There are various conditions, which, when present, will prevent an act from being wrongful which in their absence would be wrong. Under such conditions, the act is said to be justified or excused, and when an act is said in general terms to be wrongful, it is assumed that no such qualifying conditions exist. These justifications from civil liability for acts prima facie wrongful are based principally upon public grounds.

Key Defenses:
#
1. Plaintiff the Wrongdoer
  The plaintiff is not disabled from recovery by reason of being himself a wrongdoer unless some unlawful act or conduct on his part is connected with the harm suffered by him as part of the same transaction (ex turpi causa non oritor actio - from an immoral cause, no action arises).
  - Bird v. Holbrook (1828): The plaintiff entered the defendant’s garden and triggered a spring gun. The court held that the defendant was liable as the use of a spring gun was disproportionate to deter a trespasser.
2. Inevitable Accidents
  An inevitable accident is that which could not possibly be prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill. It means an accident physically unavoidable.
  - Stanley v. Powell: The defendant, while shooting birds, accidentally injured the plaintiff. The court ruled it as an inevitable accident since there was no negligence.
  - Brown v. Kendel: The defendant accidentally injured the plaintiff while separating fighting dogs. The act was held as an inevitable accident.
  - Padmavati v. Dugganaika: A jeep suddenly overturned due to mechanical failure. The court held it as an inevitable accident as reasonable precautions were taken.
3. Act of God (vis major)
  It is a direct, violent, sudden, and irresistible act of nature that could not, by any amount of foresight or care, be avoided. Examples include lightning, floods, earthquakes, and extraordinary rain.
  - Nicholas v. Marshland: Unprecedented rainfall caused artificial lakes to overflow, damaging neighboring properties. The court ruled it an Act of God as the rainfall was extraordinary and unforeseeable.
4. Private Defence
  Every person has the right to defend themselves, their property, or possession against unlawful harm. The use of reasonable force is justified.
  - Morris v. Nugent: The defendant, defending himself from an unlawful attack, accidentally injured a third party. The act was held lawful under private defense.
5. Mistake
  Mistake refers to an unintentional act or omission. A mistake of fact or law generally does not excuse liability in torts.
  - Consolidated Company v. Curtis (1892): The defendant mistakenly believed he had a right over goods but was held liable for conversion.
6. Necessity
  Acts done to prevent greater harm are justified under necessity.
  - Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation: The Supreme Court ruled that while necessity may justify certain actions, it cannot override constitutional rights.
  - Kirk v. Gregory: The defendant moved the plaintiff’s jewelry to a safer place during a robbery. The court upheld the defense of necessity.
7. Statutory Authority
  If an act is authorized by legislation, it is not wrongful, even if harm results, unless the statute provides for compensation.
  - Vaughn Case: Legislative authorization shielded liability for harm caused during lawful actions.
  - Allen v. Gulf Oil Refining Ltd: The defendant’s lawful refinery operations caused inconvenience to neighbors. The court upheld statutory authority.
  - Metropolitan Asylum District v. Hill: Harm resulting from statutory duties was excused, provided conditions for authority were fulfilled.
8. Volenti non fit injuria (No injury is done to one who consents)
  No injury is done to one who consents. A person who voluntarily agrees to an act cannot claim damages for harm resulting from it.
  - Illot v. Swilkes: A trespasser triggered a spring gun knowingly placed by the owner. The court rejected the claim.
  - Hall v. Brookland Auto Racing Club: A spectator at a racing event was injured. The court held the defense as the spectator voluntarily assumed the risk.
  - Woolridge v. Summer: A photographer injured by a horse at a race was barred from claiming damages as he willingly took the risk.
  - Smith v. Baker & Sons (1891): A workman injured by falling stones successfully claimed damages, as he had no option but to work under dangerous conditions.
  - Imperial Chemical Industries v. Shatwell: Workers who ignored safety precautions and were injured could not claim damages as they voluntarily assumed the risk.
  - Haynes v. Harwood: A rescuer injured while saving others was allowed to claim damages, as rescue cases form an exception to the defense.
  - White v. Blackmore: The defense of consent was upheld for a plaintiff injured in a dangerous event he voluntarily attended.
Vicarious Liability:
One person may be held liable for the wrongful acts of another (e.g., employer’s liability for employee’s acts).
- It is the employer who is to be made liable because it is he who has set the whole thing in motion. The basis of this rule is upon public policy.
Essentials of the Rule:
#
1. Relationship:
  The plaintiff must prove the relationship between the defendant and the actual wrongdoer (e.g., employer-employee).
2. Course of Employment:
  The wrongful act must have been committed by the servant during the course of their employment.
Examples of Vicarious Liability:
#
- Principal-Agent:
  - Liability arises when one person authorizes another to commit a tort. This is joint and several liability.
  - Lloyd v. Grace Smith & Co.: A solicitor’s clerk fraudulently transferred the plaintiff’s property to himself. The court held the principal liable for the clerk’s fraud.
  - State Bank of India v. Shama Devi: A bank employee fraudulently deposited a cheque into his account. The bank was not held liable as the act was beyond his authority.
  - Omroe v. Crossville Motor Service Limited: A person loaned his car to a friend who caused an accident. The owner was held liable.
- Partners:
  - Partners are liable for each other’s torts committed in the course of partnership business.
  - Hamlyn v. Houston & Co.: A partner engaged in industrial espionage. The court held all partners liable.
- Master-Servant:
  - A master is liable for the wrongful acts of a servant committed during the course of employment. This liability is based on respondeat superior - let the master answer and qui facit per alium facit per se - he who acts through another, acts himself.
  - Morris v. C.W. Martin & Sons Ltd: A servant stole a fur coat entrusted for dry cleaning. The master was held liable.
  - Rooplal v. Union of India: Soldiers stole goods during duty. The court held the Union liable as the act occurred during the course of employment.
  - Polland v. Parr & Sons: A servant injured a boy while trying to protect his master’s property. The master was held liable.
  - Century Insurance Co. v. Northern Ireland Road Transport Board: A driver caused a fire while transferring petrol due to negligence. The master was held liable.
Acts Outside the Course of Employment:
#
- Hilton v. Thomas Burton: Workers who went on an unauthorized tea break caused an accident. The master was not held liable.
- Beard v. London Omnibus Co.: A conductor who drove a bus without authorization caused injury. The master was not held liable.
- Ricketts v. Thomas Tilling Co.: A driver negligently allowed an unqualified person to drive. The master was held liable.
Effect of Express Prohibition:
#
- Limpus v. London General Omnibus Co.: A driver ignored his master’s instructions and drove recklessly, causing injury. The master was held liable despite express prohibition.
Lending a Servant to Another:
#
- Mercy Docks and Harbour Board v. Coggins & Griffiths Liverpool Ltd (1947): A crane operator injured a plaintiff while working for stevedores. The general employer, not the stevedores, was held liable.
- Stevedores are dock workers, they are few in number in modern times due to the shipping container revolution.
Distinction Between Servant and Independent Contractor:
#
- Servant: Works under supervision and direction, bound by the employer’s orders.
- Independent Contractor: Exercises discretion over how and when to perform tasks, bound only by contract terms.
Doctrine of Common Employment:
#
- The master is not liable for harm caused by one servant to another in the same employment.
- Priestly v. Fowler: A servant overloaded a cart, causing injury to a fellow servant. The court held the master was not liable under common employment.
Reforms in the Doctrine of Common Employment:
#
- The doctrine was abolished in England by the Law Reforms (Personal Injuries) Act, 1948, and in India by the Employer’s Liability Act, 1938.
- Secretary of State for India v. Rukmini Bai: A servant injured a co-worker, leading to death. The court held the master liable, rejecting the doctrine of common employment.

Liability of the State for Torts:
The state can be liable for torts committed by its employees under certain circumstances. However, the Defense of Sovereign Immunity may protect the state in some cases.

Vicarious Liability of the State:
#
- At Common Law:
  - Historically, the King could not be sued for torts, either for wrongful acts authorized by the Crown or committed by its servants.
  - This position changed with the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, making the Crown liable for torts of its servants.
- In India:
  - India does not have statutory provisions like the Crown Proceedings Act, but Article 300 of the Constitution of India provides that the Government of India or State may sue and be sued in the same way as pre-Constitution entities like the East India Company.
  - The Union and States are juristic persons for the purposes of suits or proceedings.
  - Liability depends on whether the act was sovereign or non-sovereign in nature.
Case Laws:
#
- Sovereign vs. Non-Sovereign Functions:
  - Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State for India: The plaintiff’s horse was startled by negligent government servants carrying iron rods, causing injury. The court distinguished sovereign (immune) and non-sovereign (liable) functions.
  - A distinction was drawn between sovereign and non-sovereign functions and held, if act done in sovereign functions, the company would not be liable, but if the functions were non-sovereign in nature i.e. which could have been performed by a private individual without any delegation of power by the government, the company would have been liable.
- Negligence of Government Servants:
  - State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati: A government driver negligently killed the plaintiff’s husband. The court held the state liable as the act was non-sovereign. The act was done during the course of employment.
  - Kasturi Lal v. State of UP: AIR 1965 - A partner of a jewellery shop was travelling to another state and he was held by the police as he was travelling during wee hours. Next day it was ascertained that he was a genuine jeweller and the silver was returned but gold was stolen by the constable and he fled to Pakistan. It was held that the state was not liable as they were discharging a sovereign function.
- Acts of Police Officials:
  - P Narasimha v. Commissioner & Special Officer: A traffic official moved a wrongly parked bus, and the state was not liable as the plaintiff was a wrongdoer.
  - Madhya Pradesh v. Chiraunji Lal: Police initiated lathi charge on students and destroyed the mics. The vendor for the mic set sued. The court held that since the police had the power through sovereign power to quell the crowd, they were not liable.
- Non-Sovereign Functions:
  - Rooplal v. Union of India: Jawans stole wood for warmth; the state was liable as the function was non-sovereign.
Compensation for Loss or Damage:
#
- Loss of Property:
  - When the property is in the possession of state officials, it is deemed to be a bailment and state as a bailee and held to restore property or pay compensation.
  - State of Gujarat v. Momon Mohammed: Customs authority seized two trucks on the grounds that the plaintiff did not pay the import duties. Some of the goods in the container were smuggled. It was held that the state was a bailee of the goods and were to maintain the goods in the same fashion or restore the plaintiff with compensation.
- Death or Injuries:
  - People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. State of Bihar 1987: about 600 agriculture peasants assembled peacefully. Superintendent of Police surrounded them and opened fire. 21 people including children died. The court held that the the state was liable and must pay Rs 20,000 for each death within 2 months.
  - Rudl Shah v. State of Bihar: the accused was acquitted in 1968. In spite of release, he was undergoing imprisonment till 1982 for a period of 14 extra years. Petitioner sued through writ of habeas corpus. The court held that Rs 30,000 must be paid as compensation and also allowed the petitioner to sue all the persons involved in erring their duty such as SP, Jailer etc.
Modern Position:
#
- The Supreme Court has moved away from sovereign immunity in many cases, emphasizing accountability:
  - N. Nagendra Rao v. State of AP: The state was held liable for negligence by its officers, ruling that sovereign immunity cannot absolve liability for wrongful acts.

Joint Liability
#

Multiple parties may be liable for the same tort. For example, partners in a business may be jointly liable for a tort.

Joint Tortfeasors
- Cox Case: Partners in a business partnership are jointly liable.
Individual Tortfeasors
- These are tortfeasors who act independently but their actions result in the same damage. Each may be held independently liable.

Rule of Strict Liability | No Fault Liability (Rylands v. Fletcher 1868):
A person who brings something dangerous onto their land is strictly liable if it escapes and causes harm, regardless of negligence.
- No fault liability is recognized as strict liability in the Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) LR HL 330.
- The liability of the defendants is more and strict in ordinary cases for harm caused to others on account of the escape of things from their land.
Principles:
#
1. Dangerous Thing:
  Liability arises for the escape of a thing from one’s land, provided the thing is dangerous and likely to cause mischief if it escapes. Examples include gas, electricity, and noxious gas.
  - Ponting v. Noakes: The plaintiff’s horse trespassed onto the defendant’s land, nibbled yew leaves, and died. The court held there was no escape, as the horse had trespassed.
  - Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board: The defendant planted yew trees close to the boundary of the plaintiff’s land. The leaves spread into the plaintiff’s property, poisoning his cattle. The court held the defendant liable for the escape of the dangerous thing.
2. Escape:
  Liability arises when something dangerous escapes from the defendant’s land and causes harm.
3. Non-Natural Use of Land:
  Keeping water for ordinary domestic purposes is considered natural use. However, using land for non-natural purposes, such as storing large quantities of water or dangerous substances, increases the risk to others and makes the defendant liable.
Exceptions to Strict Liability:
#
1. Plaintiff’s Own Default:
  If the plaintiff suffers damage due to their intrusion onto the defendant’s property, they cannot claim damages.
  - Ponting v. Noakes: The plaintiff’s horse trespassed onto the defendant’s land, and the defendant was not held liable as there was no escape.
2. Act of God:
  Acts caused by natural forces that no human foresight could anticipate or prevent.
  - Nicholas v. Marshland: Unprecedented rainfall caused artificial lakes to overflow, damaging the plaintiff’s property. The court held the defendant was not liable as the event was an Act of God.
3. Consent of the Plaintiff (Volenti Non Fit Injuria):
  When the plaintiff consents to the presence of a dangerous thing for their common benefit, the defendant is not liable.
  - Carstair v. Taylor: The defendant lived on the upper floor and the plaintiff on the lower floor. Water leaked and caused damage to the plaintiff’s property. The court held that the plaintiff had consented to the installation of water pipes for mutual benefit, and the defendant was not liable.
4. Act of a Third Party:
  If harm is caused by a stranger who is not under the defendant’s control, the defendant is not liable.
  - Richards v. Lothian: A stranger blocked the defendant’s washing basin, causing water to flood into the plaintiff’s townhouse. The court held that the defendant was not liable as the act was caused by a third party outside their control.
5. Statutory Authority:
  Acts done under statutory authority can be a valid defense against liability under this rule. However, negligence while performing statutory duties cannot be excused.
  - Green v. Chelsea Waterworks Co.: Defendant’s employees were working and the pipes burst leading to damage to the plaintiff’s land. The court held the defendant not liable as it was working under statutory authority.

Rule of Absolute Liability (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 1987 SC 1086):
In cases involving hazardous activities, liability is absolute, meaning the defendant is liable regardless of fault or negligence.
- Sriram Food and Fertilizers Industry: This case involved a hazardous activity in a populated area, leading to a gas leak.
- MC Mehta: A public interest petitioner invoked Article 32 of the Constitution in the Supreme Court, seeking justice for the victims of the Oleum Gas Leak in Delhi.
- The Supreme Court rejected the strict liability principle from Rylands v. Fletcher and developed a new rule of Absolute Liability, recognizing the evolving nature of science, technology, and societal needs.
Chief Justice Bhagwati’s Observations:
#
- An enterprise engaging in hazardous or inherently dangerous industries owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community.
- Such industries must ensure the highest standards of safety to prevent harm.
- If harm occurs, liability is absolute, irrespective of care or negligence.
- The principle justifies liability on three grounds:
  1. Hazardous activities for profit entail a social obligation to compensate victims.
  2. Enterprises have resources to discover and prevent risks.
  3. Compensation must correlate with the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise to deter negligence.
Legislative Framework:
#
- The Bhopal Gas Tragedy Act:
  - Established compensation slabs:
    - ₹1L–₹3L for death.
    - ₹50K–₹2L for permanent disability.
    - ₹30K–₹1L for other injuries.
- The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991:
  - Ensures immediate relief to victims of hazardous accidents.
  - Mandates insurance policies for handling hazardous substances, based on no-fault liability.
  - Covers manufacturing, processing, storage, and destruction of hazardous materials.
Related Case Laws:
#

Indian Council for Environment Legal Action v. Union of India (1996):
A writ was filed by Sal under Article 32, directing the state to compel the State Pollution Control Board to relocate the hazardous plant from its current location. The Supreme Court held that it could direct the central government to recover the cost of remedial measures from the private companies responsible. The central government was tasked with determining the amount required to carry out these measures, including the removal of sludge in and around the respondent company’s area. Additionally, the court laid down the Polluter Pays Principle, holding polluters liable for the environmental damage caused.
Klaus Mittelbachert v. East India Hotels (1997):
A co-pilot of a German airline was accommodated in an Indian hotel. He dived into the swimming pool, but the water level was insufficient, and the flooring was inadequately maintained. As a result, he suffered severe injuries, went into a coma for 10-11 years, and ultimately passed away. The court held that the hotel, charging high prices, owed a high degree of care to its guests, including avoiding latent defects in its structure or services. The plaintiff was awarded compensation of INR 50L for the accident.

Occupiers’ Liability:
Under common law, the law relating to liability for dangerous land and structures was classified into four heads:
1. Duty under contract.
2. Liability in tort to an invitee.
3. Liability towards licensee.
4. Liability towards trespasser.
An occupier is a responsible person or the owner of premises or structures. They owe the highest duty of care to those visitors who enter under a contract, lesser care towards invitees, even less care to licensees, and none to trespassers. The Occupiers’ Liability Act of 1957 reduced the above four heads into two categories:
1. Lawful visitors.
2. Trespassers.
However, the law relating to trespassers was not affected by the Occupiers’ Liability Act of 1957. The nature of an occupier’s obligation varies according to the kinds of persons frequenting those premises or structures. Therefore, the occupier’s obligation is considered under three heads:

Liability towards Lawful Visitors:
#

Liability towards Invitees:
- When an occupier and the visitor have a common interest, or the occupier has an interest in the visitor’s presence, the visitor is called an invitee.
- Case Law:
  - Indemnaur v. Dames: The plaintiff, a gas-fitter, entered the premises on the defendant’s request to install gas fittings. While working, he fell through an unfenced opening on the first floor and sustained injuries. The court held the defendant liable under occupiers’ liability for failing to take adequate care of the invitee.
Liability towards Licensees:
- When the occupier and the visitor do not share a common interest, the visitor is called a licensee. For example, a guest invited to dinner is a licensee. The invitation may be express or implied.
- Case Law:
  - Fairman v. Perpetual Investment Building Society: A guest visiting an apartment slipped and fell on defective stairs. The court ruled that the defendant was not liable as the danger was obvious and could have been observed by the licensee.
Liability of Occupiers of Structures Adjoining Highways:
- Occupiers of buildings adjacent to highways must ensure that their structures are maintained in a proper and safe condition to prevent harm to highway users.
- Case Law:
  - Kallulal v. Hemchand: The appellant built a house near a highway. During the rain, a boy took shelter under an old wall, which collapsed and killed him. The court held the defendant liable for failing to maintain the structure properly.

Liability towards Trespassers:
#

A trespasser is someone who enters the land without consent or invitation, and whose presence is unknown to the occupier.
If the occupier acquiesces to frequent acts of trespass, they are deemed to have licensed entry to others.
Case Law:
- Lowery v. Walker: For 35 years, the defendant allowed others to use their land without objection. The court held that the occupier was liable, as allowing trespass over such a long period implied consent.

Liability towards Children:
#

Occupiers must take into account that children are less careful than adults and more vulnerable. They should guard against dangers that may not be apparent to children but could attract them.

Extinction of Liability in Tort | Discharge of Liability in Tort:

Waiver:
When several alternative remedies are available to the plaintiff against whom a wrongful act has been committed, and if the plaintiff elects one of them as a basis for bringing an action against the wrongdoer, the other remedies are relinquished.
- The waiver of remedies may be express or implied. This is based on the rule that a person cannot both approbate and reprobate at the same time.
- Applicable in torts such as conversion, deceit, trespass, etc., but not in torts like defamation or assault.
- Verchures Creameries v. Hull & Netherlands SS Co.: The plaintiff sued as he did not receive the goods from the defendant. He had remedies available under contract, negligence, and tort of conversion. He chose breach of contract as it allowed recovery of the entire value of the goods.
Judgment Recovered:
A final judgment by a competent court extinguishes the cause of action against a wrongdoer, ending the right to sue. It also estops the litigating party from disputing the correctness of the same, either in law or in fact.
- Reasons for extinguishing liability:
  1. Public policy.
  2. Private justice.
Statute of Limitations:
Prescribes the period within which a suit relating to torts must be filed. Delayed claims will lose legal enforcement and become ineffective.
- Indian Limitation Act, 1963:
  - Gives the period of limitations for filing suits, appeals, or applications as per its schedule.
  - Example: Period of 1 year for libel.
Acquiescence:
Keeping silent without protest, when a person entitled to enforce their legal right neglects to act for a significant length of time. This leads to a waiver or abandonment of their right.
- Acquiescence may be express or implied through conduct.
- Occurs when a person, knowing their rights, does not enforce them and allows the infringer to believe they have waived their right.
Release:
A release is a formal setting free of a tortfeasor from liability, often through an agreement.
- A release obtained by fraud, mistake, or ignorance of one’s rights is not valid.
- Any surrender of the right to action is termed a release.
Accord and Satisfaction:
If the plaintiff accepts valuable consideration for the injury caused by the tortfeasor, it extinguishes the liability.
- A mere agreement without consideration does not constitute an accord.
- An accord and satisfaction may be subject to conditions, such as worsening injuries, in which case the claim may be renewed.
By Death:
A vested right of action is extinguished by the death of either the plaintiff or the defendant.
- Maxim: Actio personalis moritur cum persona – A personal right of action dies with the person.
- Case Laws:
  - Baker v. Boulton (1808): The plaintiff’s wife died due to the defendant’s negligence. The court ruled that the plaintiff could not claim for her death but could recover for his own injuries.
  - Rose v. Ford: A young girl injured and hospitalized before death was entitled to damages for shortening her lifespan.
Exceptions to the Maxim:
1. Unjust Enrichment:
  If a person wrongfully appropriates property before death, the rightful owner may recover it from the legal representatives of the deceased.
  - Law Reforms (Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1934): Allows survival of actions except in defamation.
2. Actions Under Contract:
  Contractual obligations survive death unless it involves personal services (e.g., painting).
Shortening of Expectation of Life:
If a person’s life expectancy is reduced due to injury, they may claim damages.
- Flint v. Lowell (1935): Recognized shortening of lifespan as a compensable injury.
- Rose v. Ford: A girl injured and later dying was awarded damages for suffering and reduced life expectancy.
- Benham v. Gambling (1941): A 2.5-year-old died due to negligence. Compensation of GBP 200 was awarded due to limited life prospects.
- Yorkshire Electricity Board v. Naylore (1967): A 20-year-old died, and compensation was awarded based on his future prospects, including job and life expectancy.
Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act:
Provides that all demands and rights survive the deceased’s legal representatives, except personal actions like defamation.

Unit-III: Specific Torts
#

Torts Affecting the Person
#

The wrongs of assault and battery are committed against a person’s consent or interest. These are collectively referred to as trespass to the person.

Assault
#

Definition: When the defendant, through their actions, creates an apprehension of fear in the mind of the plaintiff that they are about to commit battery, the wrong of assault is complete.
Key Points:
- It is an attempt to cause harm, not the harm itself.
- If the plaintiff knows no harm can be inflicted, it does not constitute assault.
- There must be a prima facie ability to commit harm.
- Assault has been defined in criminal law (S.130 of BNS | S.351 of IPC ) that “whoever makes any gesture, any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such act will cause any person to apprehend that likely to inflict by using criminal force that person is said to be assault.”

Essential Ingredients:
#

Intention and Ability of the Wrongdoer:
- The defendant must have both the intention and apparent ability to cause harm.
Clear, Immediate, and Real Attempt:
- Assault requires an attempt that is apparent and creates a sense of urgency.
- Tests:
  - Test of Fear: Whether apprehension of harm is created in the plaintiff’s mind.
  - Test of Distance: Proximity to harm is considered.
Verbal Threats Alone:
- Mere verbal threats do not amount to assault unless they create reasonable apprehension that force will follow.

Case Laws:
#

B Venkata Surya Rao v. N Muthayya 1964:
- The plaintiff, an agriculturist, owed money to a munisif. On the due date, the munisif came to collect the payment, but the plaintiff explained that his wife was away, the house was locked, and he needed more time. The munisif, insisting on repayment, called a goldsmith to take the plaintiff’s wife’s gold earrings. However, before the goldsmith arrived, an acquaintance of the plaintiff paid the munisif the owed amount. The plaintiff sued, alleging assault. The court held that there was no assault as there was no apparent fear created in the plaintiff’s mind.
Sheffens v. Miers:
- The plaintiff was the chairman of a Parish meeting, surrounded by other members. During discussions, one of the members became annoyed with a proposal he believed exceeded legal limits. The member stood up, pushed back his chair, rolled up his sleeves, and moved toward the chairman in an aggressive manner. The court ruled this as assault because there was apparent intention and proximity, which created reasonable apprehension in the chairman’s mind.

Battery
#

Definition: The intentional application of force to another person.
Key Points:
- It involves physical contact, even if trivial, and can occur through tangible or intangible means (e.g., spitting, fumes, electricity).
- Physical harm is not necessary, but the act must be intentional and without lawful justification.
- It has been termed as criminal force (S.350 of IPC / S.129 of BNS)

Essentials:
#

Use of Force:
- Any intentional application of force, regardless of harm, constitutes battery.
- Examples include hitting with a stick, spitting, or using gas or fumes.
Absence of Lawful Justification:
- The act must be without legal authority or justification.

Case Law:
#

Pratap Dagi v. BBCI Railways: The plaintiff entered the carriage in the defendant’s railway by failing to purchase to the ticket. When the authorities asked him to get off, he refused. The authorities used force to evict him from the train. The plaintiff sued for battery. The court held that use of reasonable force while there was a lawful justification is valid.

Differences Between Assault and Battery
#

Aspect	Assault	Battery
Physical Contact	No physical contact is required.	Physical contact is essential.
Nature of Act	An attempt or overt act to cause harm.	Completed act of force applied to another person.
Outcome	Creates apprehension of harm but no harm is caused.	Results in actual application of force (harm may not follow).
Legal Status	May or may not lead to battery.	Always includes assault.
Key Elements	Apprehension of harm and proximity.	Physical force and lack of lawful justification.

False Imprisonment
#

Definition: False imprisonment consists of imposing a total restraint on the liberty of another person for any period, however short, without lawful justification. This can involve confining someone within four walls or preventing them from leaving a specific place.

Essential Ingredients
#

Total Restraint on Liberty:
- False imprisonment occurs only when there is complete restraint on the plaintiff’s movement.
- Case Law:
  - Bird v. Jones:
    - A public road was partially closed to allow spectators to view a boat race.
    - The plaintiff, Bird, attempted to walk along the closed section of the road but was stopped by the defendant’s agents, who prevented him from proceeding further in that direction.
    - Bird was not physically confined or prevented from moving in other directions he was only restricted from continuing along the closed road.
    - He sued for false imprisonment. The court held that total restraint was required for false imprisonment.
  - Herd v. Weardale Steel Coal and Coke Co.: The plaintiff, a coal mine worker, demanded to be brought to the surface before the stipulated shift end. The employer refused as per company policy to only convey workers at specific times. The court held it was not false imprisonment as the refusal was justified under the work contract.
Without Lawful Justification:
- If the restraint has a lawful basis, it does not amount to false imprisonment.
- Case Law:
  - Robinson v. Balmain New Ferry Co.: The plaintiff was detained on a wharf for not paying the exit fee. The court held that it was not false imprisonment as there was lawful justification.
No Means of Escape:
- If the plaintiff has a reasonable means of escape, the restraint cannot be termed total, and false imprisonment is not constituted.
- Case Law:
  - John Lewis & Co v. Tims: A mother and daughter were detained after the daughter shoplifted items. The court held that the detention was not false imprisonment as it was based on reasonable suspicion.
Knowledge of Restraint:
- The knowledge of being detained is generally not necessary to constitute false imprisonment.
- Case Law:
  - Herring v. Boyle (1834): A schoolmaster refused to let a child leave school until a payment was made. The court ruled that it was not false imprisonment as the child was unaware of the reason for detention.
  - Meering v. Grahame-White Aviation Co.: The plaintiff was detained by the defendant’s officials on suspicion of theft until the police arrived. The court held that detention by the officials without evidence was false imprisonment.

Remedies
#

Action for Damages:
- A plaintiff who has been wrongfully detained may seek compensation for injury to liberty, mental suffering, humiliation, and loss of social status.
Self-Help:
- A person can use reasonable force to escape unlawful detention. This is an extrajudicial remedy.
Habeas Corpus:
- Under Articles 32 and 226, the Supreme Court and High Courts can issue the writ of Habeas Corpus to produce the detained person before the court. If the detention is deemed false, the court will order immediate release.

Defences
#

Consent
Self-Defence
Contributory Negligence
Prevention or Ejectment of Trespassers
Prevention of Breach of Peace
Parental and Quasi-Parental Authority
Inevitable Accident
Statutory Authority

Malicious Prosecution
#

Definition
#

Malicious prosecution refers to the wrongful and malicious institution of criminal or civil proceedings against an individual without reasonable and probable cause.

Essential Elements
#

Malice:
- There must be improper motive or intention behind initiating the proceedings.
- Case Law:
  - Kantaprasad Gupta v. National Buildings Corp Ltd: Highlighted that malice involves a deliberate intent to cause harm through legal processes.
Absence of Reasonable and Probable Cause:
- The defendant must have initiated the proceedings without reasonable grounds.
- Case Law:
  - Abrath v. North Eastern Railway Co.: A doctor provided a certificate for a worker’s ailment, which was used by the worker to justify absence from work. Suspecting fraud, the railway company initiated prosecution against the doctor, but he was exonerated. The doctor sued for malicious prosecution and successfully proved lack of probable cause and malice.
Termination of Proceedings in Favour of the Plaintiff:
- The proceedings must have been resolved in the plaintiff’s favor.
- If the plaintiff was convicted, they cannot sue unless an appeal overturns the conviction.
Damages:
- The plaintiff must show actual damage resulting from the prosecution.
- Types of Damages:
  - Damage to reputation.
  - Damage to person.
  - Damage to property.
- Factors Considered by Court:
  - Nature of the offence charged.
  - Inconvenience suffered by the plaintiff.
  - Monetary loss.
  - Status and position of the plaintiff.

Malicious Civil Proceedings
#

Unlike criminal proceedings, no action can generally be brought for malicious civil proceedings.
The unsuccessful plaintiff in a civil case typically bears the cost of litigation.

Maintenance and Champerty
#

Maintenance:
- Providing financial or other assistance to a party in a lawsuit without lawful justification.
- It is both a civil wrong and a crime under common law.
- The person who aid, encourages, assists has no concern in litigation.
  - It is strictly prohibited by common law and they are answerable to the injury to the plaintiff with damages.
Champerty:
- A form of maintenance where the supporter aids the plaintiff in return for a share of the proceeds from the lawsuit.
- It involves unlawful maintenance of a suit in exchange for a profit or part of the disputed property.

Defences
#

Statutory authority.
Mere provision of information to police without malicious intent.
Proceedings were civil in nature.
No malice in initiating the prosecution.
Reasonable and probable cause existed.
Prosecution was in the national interest.
Proceedings terminated in favor of the defendant.
Plaintiff did not suffer damages.

Nervous Shock
#

Nervous shock refers to emotional or psychiatric harm caused by a tortious act. It is a shock to the nerve and brain structure of the body and constitutes an indirect injury. An action lies for nervous shock if caused by witnessing or hearing about a traumatic event.

This branch of law is of recent origin and provides relief when physical injury does not arise from direct impact (e.g., stick, sword, bullet) but from nervous shock due to what has been seen or heard.

Case Laws
#

Victorian Railway Commissioner v. Coultas:
- A railway company’s negligence caused injury, but the Privy Council did not recognize nervous shock as a valid ground for relief and denied compensation. This case initially rejected the concept of nervous shock in law.
Wilkinson v. Downton (1897):
- A family friend falsely told a wife that her husband had met with an accident. Upon hearing this, she fainted due to the shock. The court held the defendant liable, recognizing that intentional infliction of nervous shock could result in damages. This case is famously referred to as the “joke case.”
Dulieu v. White & Sons (1901):
- A pregnant woman standing behind a railing in a public house suffered nervous shock when the defendant’s servant negligently drove a horse van into the building. The shock caused her to give premature birth to a stillborn child. The court ruled in her favor, establishing that nervous shock must arise from reasonable fear of immediate personal injury to oneself.
Hambrook v. Stokes Brothers (1925):
- A mother, after leaving her children near a school, heard a scream and was informed by a bystander that a lorry had hit two children. She died from shock, fearing for her children. The court held the defendant liable as the proximity and foreseeability of harm were clear.
Owens v. Liverpool Corporation (1939):
- A tram car, driven rashly and negligently, collided with a funeral procession, causing the coffin to fall and the body to be exposed. The court awarded damages for nervous shock caused to mourners.
Burhill v. Young (1943):
- A pregnant fisherwoman witnessed the aftermath of a motorcycle accident where the rider died. She saw the pool of blood, which caused her to suffer nervous shock and give birth to a stillborn baby. The court ruled that the defendant’s legal representatives were not liable, as there was insufficient proximity.
King v. Phillips (1953):
- A mother observed a taxi reversing near her child playing on a tricycle from 80 yards away. She thought her child had been hit and suffered nervous shock. The court ruled the defendant was not liable due to lack of proximity and foreseeability.

Legal Principles
#

For an action for nervous shock, it is not mandatory for a person to be in the area of physical injury; witnessing or hearing about an event can suffice.
King v. Phillips suggests that each case must be reconsidered based on its facts, with proximity and foreseeability being critical factors.

Torts Affecting Immovable Property
#

Trespass to Land
#

Definition:
- Trespass to land refers to the unauthorised entry onto another’s possession of land without lawful justification. This can occur either through a person physically entering the land or by causing a material object to enter it.
- Going beyond the purpose for which a person has entered certain premises also amounts to trespass.
- If there is no demarcation of land, it will not amount to trespass.
Key Points:
- Trespass is a wrong against possession rather than ownership.
- Trespass can include intrusion on sub-soil.
- Trespass is actionable per se, meaning proof of actual damage is not required (res ipsa loquitor).
Case Laws:
- Madhav Vittal Das Khudwa v. Madhav Das Vallabh Das (1975): The plaintiff, a tenant in a multi-storied building, parked his car in the compound of the building. The defendant (owner) obstructed him, arguing that the land belonged to him. The court held that the tenant had the right to park in the compound despite it being the owner’s land, as it was reasonable use of the property.
- Six Carpenters Case: Four men entered a wine shop, consumed wine and bread, and refused to pay the bill. The court held that trespass was not ab initio in this case as their entry was lawful, but their subsequent refusal to pay was malfeasance.
- Ilias v. Pismore: A police officer, while executing a lawful arrest, went beyond his authority by taking documents and valuables from the premises. The court held this act as trespass.

Entry with License
#

Definition:
- Entering premises with the permission of the person in possession is termed as a license. However, after the license’s purpose is fulfilled, any further stay constitutes trespass.
- Types of License:
  - Bare License: Can be revoked at any time (e.g., a repairman visiting to fix a fan).
  - License Coupled with Grant: Cannot be revoked once granted (e.g., permission to cut and take wood).
Case Laws:
- Wood v. Leadbitter: The plaintiff was asked to leave a horse race after the revocation of his license. He refused and was forcibly ejected. The court held that after the revocation of the license, the plaintiff became a trespasser, and his ejection was lawful.
- Hurst v. Pictures Theatres Ltd: The plaintiff purchased a cinema ticket and was ejected without verification of the ticket. The court ruled that the ejection was unlawful and amounted to assault.

Remedies for Trespass to Land
#

Re-entry:
- The person disturbed may use reasonable force to remove the trespasser after providing notice.
Action for Ejectment:
- A speedy remedy for a person dispossessed of immovable property. The dispossessed person can file a civil suit within six months of dispossession under the Specific Relief Act 1963.
Action for Mesne Profits:
- Apart from recovering the land, the dispossessed person can claim compensation for losses suffered during the period of dispossession. This compensation is termed as mesne profits.
Distress Damage Feasant:
- The right to seize trespassing cattle or chattels and detain them until compensation is paid. Key points include:
  - The right is available only when the object causing damage is unlawful.
  - It applies to trespassing chattels or cattle but does not extend to objects removed from the premises.
  - Seizure is limited to the specific item causing damage (e.g., only the trespassing animal, not the entire herd).

Nuisance
#

Definition:
- The word nuisance is derived from the French word ’nocre’ and Latin word ’nocere,’ meaning to do hurt or annoy.
- In tort law, nuisance means the unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land or some right associated with it. Examples include interference caused by noise, smoke, smell, water, gas, etc.
- It is distinguished from trespass as follows: if the interference is direct, it is trespass; if consequential, it is nuisance.
- Trespass can also occur through intangible mediums like gas or noise.
- Special damage must be proven for a claim of nuisance to succeed.

Private Nuisance
#

Definition:
- Private nuisance is a tort and a civil wrong that causes damage to the plaintiff’s property or personal discomfort to the plaintiff in the enjoyment of their property.

Essentials of Private Nuisance
#

Unreasonable Interference:
- Interference must be unreasonable, determined by the nature of the locality, time, place, and social norms.
- Reasonable care taken by the defendant does not make unreasonable acts lawful.
- Oversensitivity on the plaintiff’s part does not constitute nuisance.
- Case Laws:
  - Radhe Shyam v. Guruprasad: The defendant installed a running flour mill on the ground floor of a building, while the plaintiff occupied the first floor. The court held that the operation of the mill caused nuisance and granted a permanent injunction.
  - Robinson v. Kilveri: The plaintiff ran a paper business, and heat from a bakery above discolored the paper. The court ruled that the plaintiff’s business was overly sensitive, and the bakery was not liable for nuisance.
  - Stone v. Bolton: For over a decade, cricket was played on a ground. A lady standing at a bus stop far from the field was injured by a ball. The court held that this isolated act did not constitute nuisance, and the defendant was not liable.
  - Campbell v. Paddington Corp (1911): Recognized that the plaintiff must establish that the interference with their enjoyment of land was substantial and unreasonable.
  - Ram Raj Singh v. Babu Lal: The defendant erected a brick kiln next to the plaintiff’s clinic, generating dust that affected the plaintiff’s ability to practice as a medical professional. The court granted a permanent injunction and directed the kiln’s relocation.
Interference in the Use or Enjoyment of Land:
- Interference may occur through:
  - Injury to property (tangible or intangible objects).
  - Injury to the comfort or health of property occupants.
- Categories:
  - Incorporeal Property: Interference with rights such as support of land or buildings.
  - Corporeal Property: Interference with tangible rights such as light or shade.
Damage:
- Actual damage or harm must be demonstrated, either to the property itself or to the plaintiff’s comfort or health.

Additional Points
#

Nuisance is generally a continuing wrong; an isolated incident is rarely classified as nuisance.
Injuries caused by intangible factors (e.g., light, heat, or smell) may also constitute nuisance if they are substantial and unreasonable.

Public Nuisance
#

Public nuisance refers to acts that affect the community at large rather than specific individuals. It is considered an interference with a public right, such as obstruction of a highway or pollution of air or water, which may impact the comfort, safety, or health of the public.

Torts Relating to Movable Property
#

Trespass to Movable Property
#

Definition:
- It is a wrong against possession. Any direct or physical interference with a person’s possession of goods, whether actual or constructive, constitutes trespass to movable property.
Case Laws:
- Armory v. Delamire:
  - A man found a gem and took it to a jeweler to ascertain its value. The jeweler claimed it was worthless and refused to return it. The court held that the jeweler’s act was trespass to movable property, and the plaintiff was entitled to the highest value of the jewel.
- Kirk v. Gregory:
  - The defendant (sister-in-law) moved jewels from one room to another after the death of her brother-in-law. When the legal heirs demanded the jewels, they could not be found. The court held that this act was direct interference without lawful justification, and she was liable.
- Chriswell v. Sirl:
  - The defendant’s son shot sheep and pigs belonging to the plaintiff, fearing they might come toward him, though they were not. The court held this as interference without lawful justification, and the defendant was liable.

Detinue (Trover)
#

Definition:
- Detinue arises when a defendant wrongfully detains goods belonging to the plaintiff and refuses to return them upon lawful demand. It is an action for the recovery of goods.
Key Points:
- If the original possession was lawful but later the goods were wrongfully detained, an action for detinue can be initiated.
- Detinue has been abolished in England, but in India, recovery of specific movable property is governed by Sections 7 and 8 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Case Law:
- Bansi v. Govardhan:
  - The defendant hired a cycle but refused to return it. The court held him liable under detinue, and he was ordered to pay the value of the cycle.

Conversion
#

Definition:
- Conversion refers to the wrongful dealing with goods in such a way that the rightful owner is deprived of possession or use. It does not require wrongful intention.
Essentials:
1. Wrongful Intention Not Necessary:
  - Conversion can occur regardless of the intention of the wrongdoer.
  - Case Law:
    - Richardson v. Atkinson:
      - The defendant mixed water with wine to fill the cast. The act was held as conversion since it interfered with the quality of the plaintiff’s goods.
2. Immediate Right of Possession or Use:
  - The plaintiff must have the right to immediate possession of the goods.
3. Denial of Plaintiff’s Rights:
  - The defendant’s act must deny or interfere with the plaintiff’s ownership rights.

Unit-IV: Defamation and Other Specific Torts
#

Defamation: Defamation is the publication of a statement that lowers a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society or makes them shunned or avoided. Reputation is considered an inherent personal right and an asset that, once lost, may not be recoverable.

Kinds of Defamation (Recognised under English law but not under Indian law)
#

Libel:
- Representation made in a permanent form (e.g., writing, printing, effigies).
- Always actionable per se (no proof of special damage necessary).
Slander:
- Defamatory statements made in a transient form (e.g., spoken words, gestures).
- Actionable only upon proof of special damage.
Under Indian Criminal Law:
- No distinction is made between libel and slander. Both are offences under S.499 of IPC and S.356 of BNS.
Case Law:
- Parvathi v. Mannar: An allegation was made against a woman claiming she was the “keep” of her father-in-law. The court held it was defamatory, and she succeeded in her claim.

Essentials of Defamation
#

The Statement Must Be Defamatory:
- Words must lower the plaintiff’s reputation, expose them to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, injure their trade/profession, or cause them to be shunned or avoided.
- Defamatory statements can be malicious or negligent.
The Statement Must Refer to the Plaintiff:
- Plaintiff must prove that the defamatory statement referred to them, even if a fictitious name was used.
- The intention or motive of the defendant is immaterial as long as the words can reasonably be understood to refer to the plaintiff.
- Case Laws:
  - Hulton & Co. v. Jones: A fictitious article in a newspaper degraded the character of “Artemus Jones,” who was a real advocate. The court held the defendant liable.
  - Newstead v. London Express Newspaper Ltd: A defamatory statement referred to a person with a similar name to a renowned individual. The court held it was defamatory.
The Statement Must Be Published:
- Publication means making the defamatory statement known to a third party.
- Rules of Publication:
  - Publication must be to someone other than the plaintiff.
  - Statements between husband and wife are not considered defamatory.
  - Repetition of defamatory words constitutes a new publication, giving rise to a distinct cause of action.

Defences of Defamation (Available to Defendant)
#

Truth / Justification:
- The truth of the statement is a complete defence. The defendant bears the burden of proving the truth in substance, not necessarily literal accuracy.
- Case Laws:
  - Bishop v. Letimer: A newspaper article criticizing a lawyer’s treatment of clients was held not to be defamatory because it did not contain sufficient defamatory implications.
  - Alexander v. North Eastern Railways Co.: A newspaper published the plaintiff’s conviction for travelling without a ticket. The court held that the defendant was not liable since the statement was true.
Fair Comment:
- Bona fide comments on matters of public interest are not actionable, even if defamatory.
- Essentials to Prove Fair Comment:
  - The statement must be an opinion, not an assertion of fact.
  - The opinion must be fair and made in good faith.
  - The matter commented upon must be of public interest.
Privilege:
- Absolute Privilege:
  - No action lies, even for false or malicious statements.
  - Examples:
    - Parliamentary proceedings.
    - Judicial proceedings (judges, counsels, witnesses).
    - State communications between officials.
- Qualified Privilege:
  - Protects statements made without malice.
  - Covers fair and accurate reports of parliamentary, judicial, or public proceedings, as well as newspaper reports of such events.
Apology:
- A statutory defence available only for libel in newspapers or periodicals.
- The defendant must prove:
  - Absence of malice.
  - The apology was made at the earliest opportunity.

Innuendo
#

Definition:
- Words that are not defamatory in their ordinary sense may, under certain circumstances, convey a defamatory meaning. This happens when the specific circumstances in which the words are used give them a libellous implication. Innuendo denotes an explanatory statement where the words are indirectly defamatory.
Case Laws:
- Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Ltd:
  - The defendant published a photograph of Mrs. Cassidy with Mr. Cassidy, implying she was not his lawful wife. The defamatory implication arose because of the suggestion of improper conduct. The court held the defendant liable for defamation.
- Morrison v. Ritchie & Co.:
  - A newspaper published that a young woman, married for only two months, had given birth to twins. This statement implied misconduct. The court held the defendant liable for defamation.

Negligence
#

Definition:
- Negligence is a separate tort that refers to conduct creating a risk of harm rather than a state of mind. It involves failure to exercise reasonable care under specific circumstances.
Essentials of Negligence:

a. Defendant Owes Duty of Care to the Plaintiff:
- This duty must be legal, not merely moral, religious, or social.
- The plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed a specific legal duty of care, which was breached.
- Case Laws:
  - Fardon v. Harcourt-Rivington: Defendant put his dog inside a car and locked the car. When the plaintiff was passing by the defendant’s car, the dog barked furiously and broke the glass of the window and injured the plaintiff. The court held that it was an inevitable accident and not negligence by the defendant.
  - Harjeet Kaur v. Deol Bus Service Ltd: Counsel was held liable for negligence in filing a petition, which caused the plaintiff to lose the case.
b. Defendant Breached the Duty of Care:
- The breach is assessed based on the degree of risk, with the standard being that of a reasonable or prudent man.
- Considerations include:
  1. The importance of the objective.
  2. Balancing public interests with risks involved.
  3. Magnitude of the risk (e.g., different degrees of care in varying situations).
- Case Laws:
  - Nirmala v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board: High-voltage wires snapped and caused a fatal electric shock. The defendant was held liable for negligence.
  - Glasgow Corporation v. Taylor: A child died after consuming poisonous berries in a public park. The corporation was held liable for failing to ensure safety.
c. Plaintiff Suffered Damage as a Consequence:
- The defendant’s breach must directly cause the plaintiff’s damage.
- Case Law:
  - Ashby v. White (1701): Emphasized the principle that damages must flow directly from the breach of duty.

Contributory Negligence:
- Every person is expected to take care of himself. When the plaintiff by his own want of care contributes to the damage caused by the negligence or wrongful conduct of the defendant, he is considered to be guilty of contributory negligence. Defendant has to prove that plaintiff failed to take care reasonably of his safety and that was contributing factor to harm suffered by plaintiff.
- Case Laws:
  - Rural Transport Corporation v. Bezlum Bibi: Conductor asked plaintiff’s son to sit on the roof of the bus as there was no space in the bus. The conductor and driver were held for negligence and the plaintiff’s son was held for contributory negligence in the lower court.
  - Butterfield v. Forrester: The plaintiff collided with a pole negligently placed by the defendant due to their own rash driving. The court ruled that the plaintiff’s lack of care disentitled them from claiming damages.

Remoteness of Damages
#

Tests to Determine Remoteness of Damage
- The question of the defendant’s liability for the commission of a tort depends on the consequences of their actions. Two key tests are used to determine whether damage is too remote.
a. The Test of Reasonable Foresight:
- According to this test, if the consequences of a wrongful act could have been foreseen by a reasonable person, they are not too remote. The defendant is liable only for those consequences which could reasonably have been foreseen by someone in their position.
- Case Laws:
  - Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v. Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound, 1961):
    - In this case, oil spilled from the defendant’s vessel, the Wagon Mound, at Sydney Port. The oil floated to a wharf about 600 feet away, where welding operations were ongoing. The oil caught fire and destroyed the wharf and equipment. The court developed the principle of reasonable foresight, holding that the defendant is liable only for foreseeable damages.
  - Scott v. Shepherd (1773):
    - A person (A) threw a lighted squib (cigar) into a marketplace. The squib was passed from one person to another and finally injured the plaintiff (D). The plaintiff sued the original thrower. The court held that the act was the proximate cause of the injury, and A was liable to D, as the damage was reasonably foreseeable.
b. The Test of Directness:
- This test considers whether the damage directly resulted from the defendant’s wrongful act, regardless of whether it was foreseeable. Initially, it was accepted as a valid test, but it was later replaced by the reasonable foresight test.
- Case Laws:
  - Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. Ltd (1921 KB 560):
    - The defendant chartered a ship containing benzene and other hazardous materials. During unloading, tins leaked, accumulating hazardous chemicals. When a plank fell, it ignited the accumulated chemicals and destroyed the ship. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages as the destruction was a direct consequence of the wrongful act, even though it was not foreseeable.

Final Position
#

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council rejected the test of directness in favor of the test of reasonable foresight. It ruled that liability should be limited to consequences that are reasonably foreseeable, establishing the latter as the authoritative principle.

Torts Relating to Business Relations (Torts Interference into Contracts)
#

Inducement
#

It is tortious to knowingly and without lawful justification induce one person to breach an existing contract with another, causing damage to the latter.
Case Law:
- Lumley v. Gye 1853: The defendant induced a singer under contract with the plaintiff to breach her agreement and perform elsewhere. The court held the defendant liable, establishing the principle of tortious inducement to breach a contract.
Types of Inducement:
- Direct inducement.
- Performing an act that renders the contract’s fulfillment physically impossible.
- Knowingly doing an act which, if done by one of the contracting parties, would have been a breach of contract.
Note: If a contract or agreement is null and void, it does not constitute inducement.

Intimidation
#

Using unlawful threats to compel a person to act against their will or detriment, often to force them to breach a contract or suffer personal loss.
Case Law:
- Rookes v. Barnard: The plaintiff was threatened by the defendant to not conduct business in a specific area. The court held the defendant liable for intimidation.
Intimidation can target a person, property, or reputation and often involves criminal liability as well.

Injurious/Malicious Falsehood
#

Making false statements with the intent to harm a person’s business or property, resulting in pecuniary loss to the plaintiff.
Evil motive is necessary for this deceit.
Forms of Malicious Falsehood:
- Slander to Title: False statements about a person’s property or business, excluding personal reputation.
- Slander to Goods: Disparaging statements about the plaintiff’s goods, such as allegations of defects in their products.

Negligent Misstatement
#

A false statement made by the defendant negligently, causing the plaintiff to suffer a loss after relying on it. Liability arises even if the statement was made without malicious intent but was made without reasonable care.
Case Laws:
- Cann v. Wilson 1888: The defendants, valuers of a property, overvalued it without due diligence. The court recognized the action for negligent misstatement and awarded damages, emphasizing the absence of a contractual relationship.
- Derry v. Peek 1889: Directors of a tramway company issued a prospectus stating they had authority to use steam power, subject to board approval. The board voted against steam power. When permission was denied, shareholders sued for negligent misstatement. The court held that since the prospectus mentioned the conditional approval, there was no negligence or liability.

Passing Off
#

Definition:
- Passing off is a wrong where a trader uses deceptive practices to sell their goods under the impression that they are the goods of another person.
- If someone uses the same or a similar name, design, or get-up as that of the plaintiff’s goods, the wrong of passing off is constituted.
- The defendant is liable without the need to prove intent to deceive or actual damage suffered by the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff only needs to show that the defendant’s goods are marked, described, or presented in a manner likely to mislead ordinary purchasers into believing they are the plaintiff’s goods.
Case Law:
- Reddaway v. Bentham Hemp Spinning: Established that no person has the right to represent their goods as those of someone else.
Purpose of the Tort of Passing Off:
- To protect commercial goodwill.
- To secure a reasonable area of monopoly for traders.
- Unlike trademarks (which are registered), passing off protects the goodwill earned by trade names, designs, get-ups, or other distinctive features.
- To ensure a trader’s business reputation and goodwill are not exploited by others.
When an Action for Passing Off Arises:
- When a name, design, or get-up has become distinctive of the plaintiff’s goods.
- When the defendant’s use of such features is likely to deceive or confuse purchasers, causing injury to the plaintiff’s business or reputation.
Case Laws:
- Kalaniketan v. Kalanikatan:
  - The plaintiff, operating under the name Kalaniketan in Karol Bagh, Delhi, sought a permanent injunction against the defendant using a similar name. The court held that the phonetic similarity was likely to confuse the public and granted a permanent injunction.
- Ellora Industries v. Benarasi Das:
  - The plaintiff owned the trademark Ellora for watches and die pieces. The defendant, used a different name for the actual time pieces, the name was ‘Gargon’, however, used a similar box for packaging. The court held it was passing off and granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the name Ellora.

Conspiracy
#

Definition:
- Conspiracy occurs when two or more persons, without lawful justification, combine for the purpose of wilfully causing damage to the plaintiff, resulting in actual damage.
Case Law:
- Moghul Steamship Co v. McGregor, Gow & Co.: Several tea merchants combined to conduct trade with China, excluding the plaintiff from their business arrangement. The court held that there was no intent to wilfully cause damage to the plaintiff, and thus, it did not constitute a conspiracy.

Torts Affecting Family Relations / Torts Relating to Domestic Relations
#

Definition:
- Depriving a husband of the society of his wife, or vice versa, or a parent of the companionship and confidence of their children is regarded as a personal injury. These torts aim to protect the family relationships and services provided within them.
Examples:
- A husband’s action for the loss of his wife’s consortium and services.
- A parent’s action for the loss of a child’s services.
In such cases, the aggrieved party (e.g., the husband or parent) is entitled to file a suit against the person responsible for the tort to recover compensation for the loss of services, consortium, and other related damages.
Case Law:
- Cutts v. Chemley: The wife met with an accident, and the husband had to take leave from work to care for her. He sued to recover damages for the inconvenience caused, expenses incurred, and loss of his wife’s consortium and services. The court allowed compensation for the loss.

Remedies
#

Judicial Remedies
#

Damages:
- The most important remedy available to a plaintiff after a tort is committed. Types of damages include:
  - Nominal: Awarded when the plaintiff’s legal right is infringed, but no actual loss has occurred (injuria sine damnum).
    - Case Law: Ashby v. White 1701: Even though the plaintiff suffered no loss, the court awarded nominal damages as his legal right was infringed.
  - Contemptuous: Awarded when the court forms a low opinion of the plaintiff’s claim and decides not to fully compensate the loss.
  - Exemplary: Awarded in excess of material loss suffered to deter similar conduct in the future.
  - Punitive/Vindictive: Awarded to punish the defendant, especially in cases involving hazardous activities or inherently dangerous acts.
  - Perspective: Compensation for future likely losses.
  - Aggravated: Awarded when additional insult or injury to the plaintiff’s feelings is proven, taking into account the motive behind the wrong.
  - Compensatory: The most common type of damages, intended to make the plaintiff whole by compensating for actual losses.
Injunctions:
- Temporary Injunctions: Granted to maintain the status quo during litigation or to prevent disposal or destruction of property involved in the case.
- Permanent/Perpetual Injunctions: Granted after a final judgment when the plaintiff’s right to an injunction is established.
- Prohibitory Injunctions: Prevent the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s lawful rights (e.g., stopping nuisance or trespass).
- Mandatory Injunctions: Require the defendant to perform a specific act (e.g., removal of an obstruction affecting the plaintiff’s rights).
Specific Restitution of Property:
- When the plaintiff is wrongfully dispossessed of movable or immovable property, the court can order the return of the specific property.

Extra-Judicial Remedies
#

Re-entry:
- A person wrongfully dispossessed of land may retake possession using reasonable force.
Recaption of Chattel:
- A person entitled to immediate possession of goods may recover them from someone wrongfully in possession.
Self-Help:
- Permitted in certain situations without legal proceedings, including:
  - Abatement of Nuisance:
    - Injured parties can remove the nuisance under certain limitations:
      - Must be peaceful.
      - Should not endanger life or limb.
      - If necessary, entry onto another’s land is permitted.
  - Distress Damage Feasant:
    - Owners of land can seize and detain trespassing cattle causing damage and demand compensation.
  - Expulsion of Trespasser:
    - The rightful owner of property can use reasonable force to eject a trespasser.

Damages
#

Monetary Compensation:
- Aimed at compensating for harm or loss suffered due to the tort.
Kinds of Damages:
- Compensatory, punitive, nominal, and others as outlined above.

Remoteness of Damage
#

Limits liability to damages that are reasonably foreseeable and not too remote.

Actio Personalis Moritur Cum Persona
#

A principle stating that a personal injury tort action dies with the person. This applies to cases where the injured party or the tortfeasor passes away, except where statutes provide otherwise.

Law of Torts Including Motor Vehicle Accidents and Consumer Protection Laws (LL.B. I Semester) #

Unit-I: Nature of Law of Torts #

Nature of Law of Torts #

Definition of Tort #

Essential Elements of a Tort #

Development of Law of Torts in England and India #

Key Cases: #

Cases in India: #

Tort Distinguished from Crime and Breach of Contract #

Tort vs. Crime #

Tort vs. Breach of Contract #

General Principles of Liability in Torts #

Meaning of Tort: #

Categories of Misconduct: #

Breach of Trust #

Distinction Between Torts and Trusts #

Foundation of Tort Liability #

Is it the Law of Tort or the Law of Torts? #

Mental Elements of Tortious Liability #

Capacity of Parties | Parties to the Proceedings #

Who Cannot Sue #

Who Cannot Be Sued #

Quasi-Judicial Functions #

Unit-II: Defenses and Liability in Torts #

Key Defenses: #

Essentials of the Rule: #

Examples of Vicarious Liability: #

Acts Outside the Course of Employment: #

Effect of Express Prohibition: #

Lending a Servant to Another: #

Distinction Between Servant and Independent Contractor: #

Doctrine of Common Employment: #

Reforms in the Doctrine of Common Employment: #

Vicarious Liability of the State: #

Case Laws: #

Compensation for Loss or Damage: #

Modern Position: #

Joint Liability #

Principles: #

Exceptions to Strict Liability: #

Chief Justice Bhagwati’s Observations: #

Legislative Framework: #

Related Case Laws: #

Liability towards Lawful Visitors: #

Liability towards Trespassers: #

Liability towards Children: #

Unit-III: Specific Torts #

Torts Affecting the Person #

Assault #

Essential Ingredients: #

Case Laws: #

Battery #

Essentials: #

Case Law: #

Differences Between Assault and Battery #

False Imprisonment #

Essential Ingredients #

Remedies #

Defences #

Malicious Prosecution #

Definition #

Essential Elements #

Malicious Civil Proceedings #

Maintenance and Champerty #

Defences #

Nervous Shock #

Case Laws #

Legal Principles #

Torts Affecting Immovable Property #

Trespass to Land #

Entry with License #

Remedies for Trespass to Land #

Nuisance #

Private Nuisance #

Essentials of Private Nuisance #

Additional Points #

Public Nuisance #

Torts Relating to Movable Property #

Trespass to Movable Property #

Detinue (Trover) #

Law of Torts Including Motor Vehicle Accidents and Consumer Protection Laws (LL.B. I Semester)
#

Unit-I: Nature of Law of Torts
#

Nature of Law of Torts
#

Definition of Tort
#

Essential Elements of a Tort
#

Development of Law of Torts in England and India
#

Key Cases:
#

Cases in India:
#

Tort Distinguished from Crime and Breach of Contract
#

Tort vs. Crime
#

Tort vs. Breach of Contract
#

General Principles of Liability in Torts
#

Meaning of Tort:
#

Categories of Misconduct:
#

Breach of Trust
#

Distinction Between Torts and Trusts
#

Foundation of Tort Liability
#

Is it the Law of Tort or the Law of Torts?
#

Mental Elements of Tortious Liability
#

Capacity of Parties | Parties to the Proceedings
#

Who Cannot Sue
#

Who Cannot Be Sued
#

Quasi-Judicial Functions
#

Unit-II: Defenses and Liability in Torts
#

Key Defenses:
#

Essentials of the Rule:
#

Examples of Vicarious Liability:
#

Acts Outside the Course of Employment:
#

Effect of Express Prohibition:
#

Lending a Servant to Another:
#

Distinction Between Servant and Independent Contractor:
#

Doctrine of Common Employment:
#

Reforms in the Doctrine of Common Employment:
#

Vicarious Liability of the State:
#

Case Laws:
#

Compensation for Loss or Damage:
#

Modern Position:
#

Joint Liability
#

Principles:
#

Exceptions to Strict Liability:
#

Chief Justice Bhagwati’s Observations:
#

Legislative Framework:
#

Related Case Laws:
#

Liability towards Lawful Visitors:
#

Liability towards Trespassers:
#

Liability towards Children:
#

Unit-III: Specific Torts
#

Torts Affecting the Person
#

Assault
#

Essential Ingredients:
#

Case Laws:
#

Battery
#

Essentials:
#

Case Law:
#

Differences Between Assault and Battery
#

False Imprisonment
#

Essential Ingredients
#

Remedies
#

Defences
#

Malicious Prosecution
#

Definition
#

Essential Elements
#

Malicious Civil Proceedings
#

Maintenance and Champerty
#

Defences
#

Nervous Shock
#

Case Laws
#

Legal Principles
#

Torts Affecting Immovable Property
#

Trespass to Land
#

Entry with License
#

Remedies for Trespass to Land
#

Nuisance
#

Private Nuisance
#

Essentials of Private Nuisance
#

Additional Points
#

Public Nuisance
#

Torts Relating to Movable Property
#

Trespass to Movable Property
#

Detinue (Trover)
#