You are on page 1of 20


Jamia Millia islamia

Iram Peerzada
2nd Semester

Assignment on Law of Torts

Before I start off on this endeavor that has been given to me as the torts
project in the second semester of this joyful ride that I have undertaken under
the flagship of The Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia, I would like to thank
everybody who has been instrumental in my successful completion of my
First, I would like to acknowledge the immense contribution that my professor
of torts, WRITE TEACHERS NAME HERE has had on this project. By creating the
basic framework of the subject in my mind through his excellent lectures he
also contributed in the creation of the basic framework and limitations of my
topic in my mind.
Next, it would be my duty to thank the excellent library staff in the Faculty of
Law, Jamia Millia Islamia for their never ending readiness to help anyone in
finding exact readings for any such subject that he/she is researching.
Lastly, I would like to thank my classmates who never backed off when I
needed them to clarify any concept that I couldnt catch during the process of
the class.

Introduction to Law of Torts

There has been an urgent need in India to reform various sectors of law and
torts continue to be ignored, mostly for the reasons of high costs of tort
Tort is the area of law where in response to a private or civil wrong or injury
the courts provide the remedy of allowing a lawsuit for (usually monetary)
damages. Thus, the goal is to restore the victim to his or her former condition.
It has been suggested that the law of torts is developed in India in a scattered
manner, but yet it provides for very effective remedies. Most of Indian tort law
was developed after the British colonization. The continued
underdevelopment of Indian tort law is surprising given the impressive
commitment to both compassion and comprehensiveness embodied in the
Indian constitution ratified in 1950 (three years after independence from
Tort law is said to be a development of the old maxim ubi jus ibi remedium
(Every right needs a remedy). Are Indians simply possessed of fewer rights in
this important sphere? What are we to make of this underdevelopment
regarding a fundamental question in almost all systems of law- how to make
the victim whole, how to provide reparation? The law of torts as administered
in India in modern times is the English law as found suitable to Indian
conditions and as modified by Acts of the Indian Legislature.
The law of torts or civil wrongs in India is thus almost wholly the English law,
which is administered as rules of justice, equity and good conscience.
Winfield and Jolowicz- Tortuous liability arises from the breach of a duty
primarily fixed by law; this duty is towards persons generally and its breach is
redressible by an action for unliquidated damages.
Salmond and Hueston- A tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is a
common action for unliquidated damages, and which is not exclusively the
breach of a contract or the breach of a trust or other mere equitable

Sir Frederick Pollock- Every tort is an act or omission (not being merely the
breach of a duty arising out of a personal relation, or undertaken by contract)
which is related in one of the following ways to harm (including reference with
an absolute right, whether there be measurable actual damage or not),
suffered by a determinate person:a. It may be an act which, without lawful justification or excuse, is intended
by the agent to cause harm, and does cause the harm complained of.
b. It may be an act in itself contrary to law, or an omission of specific legal
duty, which causes harm not intended by the person so acting or
c. It may be an act violation the absolute right (especially rights of
possession or property), and treated as wrongful without regard to the
actors intention or knowledge. This, as we have seen is an artificial
extension of the general conceptions which are common to English and
Roman law.
d. It may be an act or omission causing harm which the person so acting or
omitting to act did not intend to cause, but might and should with due
diligence have foreseen and prevented.
e. It may, in special cases, consist merely in not avoiding or preventing
harm which the party was bound absolutely or within limits, to avoid or
Torts are civil wrongs for which the injured party may seek legal redressal for.
The injured party in case of torts is entitled to claim unliquidated damages',
the judgment of which is given by the judge of a court based on the facts,
circumstances and the amount of injury suffered which is actually suffered by
the injured party. Tort law is largely based on common sense and the
understanding prevalent between people in their everyday interactions with
each other. The purpose of tort law is to ensure that people reasonably coexist
with each other. In case of a tort case there are two parties involved in it i.e.
plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff is the person whose rights have been violated,
the one who has been injured. He is the one who is the complainant, who
comes to the court seeking remedy. On the other hand defendant is a person
who has violated the rights of the other person and has injured the other

Damages are compensation payable to the injured party for injuries sustained
because of the wrong committed by the wrongdoer. It is usually the most
common remedy of torts. This is so because in torts it is very rare, and almost
impossible, to undo the damage done and restitute a person as they were
before suffering the damage. The only way of soothing the injury is by
awarding damages, which, though monetary in nature, are compensation,
nevertheless. By this I mean that it is the most common remedy in torts.
Unliquidated damages are those damages, the amount or extent of which has
not been predetermined or decided before the wrong has committed. In civil
wrongs such as torts there are no agreements as the parties are mostly
unlikely aware of the fact that something like this will happen, for example
when a person trespasses into land of another by unknowingly or in case a
person plays loud music which causes harm to someone else, so the damages
are not predetermined and are therefore unliquidated.

Law of Torts in India

India has inherited the law of torts from the English legal system. Barring a few
civil laws, there are no written laws that specifically and comprehensively deal
with the law of torts. It is up to the Indian courts to apply an English tort
principle if justice demands it in a certain situation, either entirely, or with
appropriate modifications, as is the demand of the case or the facts. But it is of
great importance to remember that it is upon the court to decide that such
principals are applicable or not. Very few tort claim cases comes to the courts,
primarily people are not because people are not aware of their rights, and also
because fighting a court case, in Indian scenario, is often not worth the time
and effort. This is completely different from countries like America and United
Kingdom where the tort claims are frequent as the people are aware of their
Under the Hindu law and the Muslim law tort had a much narrower conception
than the tort of the English law. The punishment of crimes in these systems
occupied a more prominent place than compensation for wrongs. The law of
torts in India is mainly the English law of torts which itself is based on the

principles of the common law of England. This was made suitable to the Indian
conditions appeasing to the principles of justice, equity and good conscience
and as amended by the Acts of the legislature. Its origin is linked with the
establishment of British courts in India.
The expression justice, equity and good conscience was interpreted by the
Privy Council to mean the rules of English Law if found applicable to Indian
society and circumstances. The Indian courts before applying any rule of
English law can see whether it is suited to the Indian society and
circumstances. The application of the English law in India has therefore been a
selective application. On this the Privy Council has observed that the ability of
the common law to adapt itself to the differing circumstances of the countries
where it has taken roots is not a weakness but one of its strengths. Further, in
applying the English law on a particular point, the Indian courts are not
restricted to common law. If the new rules of English statute law replacing or
modifying the common law are more in consonance with justice, equity and
good conscience, it is open to the courts in India to reject the outmoded rules
of common law and to apply the new rules. For example, the principles of
English statute, the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act, 1945, have
been applied in India although there is still no corresponding Act enacted by
Parliament in India.
The development in Indian law need not be on the same lines as in England. In
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, Justice Bhagwati said, we have to evolve new
principles and lay down new norms which will adequately deal with new
problems which arise in a highly industrialized economy. We cannot allow our
judicial thinking to be constructed by reference to the law as it prevails in
England or for the matter of that in any foreign country. We are certainly
prepared to receive light from whatever source it comes but we have to build
our own jurisprudence.
It has also been held that section 9 of The Code of Civil Procedure, which
enables the civil court to try all suits of a civil nature, impliedly confers
jurisdiction to apply the Law of Torts as principles of justice, equity and good
conscience. Thus the court can draw upon its inherent powers under section 9
for developing this field of liability.

Quasi-contract: When a person receives some benefit that was to be given to

other, than the law says that the person is contractually bound to correct
recipient to compensate him for misplaced benefit. There is no actual
contract between wrong recipient and the right recipient, but law implies
contract under which the wrong recipient has to pay back the compensation to
the right person. This assumed contract is known as quasi-contract.

Difference between a Tort and Quasi-Contract

In case of tort duty is owed to all members of the public (though only one may
be affected) whereas in a quasi-contract, a duty is implied as being owed to a
specific person i.e., the rightful recipient. In tort the duty is present at all the
times, whereas in case of a quasi-contract is formed because of a particular
situation i.e., the wrongful recipient of the benefit etc. also in case of tort the
damages are unliquidated, but in case of a quasi-contract the damages may be
liquidated damages. Conditions which are necessary for a tort are:
There must be an act or an omission on the part of the defendant or the
alleged wrongdoer. In order to be liable for a tort, a person must have done
some act which he was not supposed to do.
The act or omission should result in a legal damage, which means that the act
or omission must result in the violation of a legal right of the plaintiff or the
complainant. The legal damage is called injuria which means legal injury'. One
can be injured but he has to be legally injured.
Also there is no general rule in tort law that one must have intended to the
wrongful act in order to be held liable. In some torts, such as assault, deceit
and conspiracy, the mental condition is relevant, while in most of the other
torts the mental condition of the wrongdoer is irrelevant. The reason for this is
that tort law requires not just that people not attempt to hurt others, but also
that people do their best not to allow their actions to accidently hurt others. So
basically tort law primarily wants to catch careless people in order to avoid
future misfortunes.
There are two terms which are used to determine whether a party has a valid
claim in tort law, i.e. whether the other person could be held liable in a court
of law or not. They are:

Injuria sine damno:

This means the violation of the legal right without the cause of actual damage.
This is a valid claim in a court of law. For example, if someone trespasses upon
the property, he can be held responsible, even if the trespass did not cause any
actual damage to the person. The person has a right to non-violation of the
bounds of his property and it is this right which has given rise to a tort claim.
Damnum sine injuria:
This means causing of death without the violation of legal right. Such a case
will not be valid in the court of law. For example, the fact that a man is injured
by another man's act is not sufficient cause; this might be even if the injurycausing act is intentional or deliberate. A violation of legal right is necessary in
order for a valid cause of legal action to exist. Now I would like to clear the
meaning of three words, these are:
Damage: actual harm suffered by the plaintiff
Injury: the violation of a legally-recognized and protected right
Damages: it means the compensation payable to the plaintiff for the harm

General Defenses to Tort Claims

If someone sues one person claiming that the other person has violated the
rights of his and has committed a tort, then certain defenses could be taken.
The extent to which they apply against different torts, may, however, differ.
Some of the defenses which can be used in torts are:

Volenti Non Fit Injuria

This means voluntary taking of a risk'. It's when a person chooses to be in the
situation that causes the injury. For example, suppose you are a spectator at a
cricket match , the batsman hits a six, and the ball lands on your head, then
you cannot claim for compensation either from the stadium authorities or the
batsman because when you took a seat in the stadium, you accepted the risks
while sitting in the stadium. Therefore if the defendant can prove that the
plaintiff voluntarily put himself in that situation, he can escape liability. The

most important thing to remember is that the action must be voluntary i.e.
with the informed consent of the relevant person. There must not be any
cheating or use of any type of force and so the person must put himself in the
situation by his own choice. There are two things which should be established
in order to use this defense.
1. That the plaintiff knew or could have expected the risks involved in such
a situation.
2. That the person agreed by a statement or conduct, to suffer the
consequence of the risk without force or compulsion or threat.
By this I want to say that it is not enough to defend by saying that the plaintiff
knew the risk; it is also necessary to show that the plaintiff voluntarily agreed
to suffer the harm which might be possible in the risky situation. But in case of
a master servant relation there might be some sought of pressure on the
servant. I would like to give an example, a master orders his servant to go and
work in a mine, if one shaft is not in a proper condition, this cannot be
assumed that the servant and so in case if there is an accident than the master
cannot claim that the servant knew and went voluntarily as there is pressure
from the master.
Plaintiff is the wrongdoer: the most important thing in this case would be that
the plaintiff did something wrong which caused him the injury. Since he
plaintiff did something wrong so he cannot claim damages from someone else
for the injury caused to him. For example, if a person walks into someone's
house and if it is written on the gate that beware of dog', the dog bites him
then the plaintiff entered the house after knowing the risk, as a result he
cannot ask for compensation, also he was the wrongdoer.

Inevitable accident

When an injury is caused to a person by an event that could not be foreseen

and avoided despite reasonable care on the part of the defendant, the defense
of inevitable accident can be used. For instance, by inevitable' it is not meant
that the accident was bound to happen, but rather, that the accident could not
have been avoided despite reasonable care. After all, how can a person are
blamed for something that he had no control whatsoever over or could not
prevent? For example, a situation where the defense could not be used is that

of a person who, while trying to separate two people fighting, hits another
person accidentally. Here the injury is negligence and no negligence is

Act of God

This defense is similar to the defense of inevitable accident according to me.

The only difference is that in the defense of Act of God the accident happens
to occur because of unforeseen natural event. The requirements which are to
be satisfied are:
1. the injury most be caused by the effect of natural forces,
2. the natural forces must be unforeseen, or the effects must be
unavoidable. So even if a natural event like a storm is taking place, if one
can take precautions and avoid the damage, the defense cannot be
3. Private defense
If one injures someone, or something that belongs to someone else, while
defending self or own property, then one can be excused if the force used to
protect self was reasonable. For instance, if someone punches you on stomach
and you shoot him that would be an excessive use of force which is not
necessary for defending yourself. The following must be satisfied in order t
claim this defense:
1. the defendant must be under threat or under attack,
2. the defense must be for self-defense and not for revenge,
3. the response must be proportional to the attack or threat. The principle
for this is that the law will not hold you responsible for an action that
you performed in order to save or protect yourself. If, however, it was
not necessary to use force for protection, the law will not protect, and
you can't use this defense.
IV. Mistake
Mistake is not usually a defense in tort law. It's not good enough to say that
you didn't know you were doing something wrong. This defense can be used in
case of malicious prosecution. In malicious prosecution it must be shown that
the prosecution was acting with malice.



In necessity, you have to show that the act you did was necessary in the
circumstances. For instance, if one enters someone's private land in order to
collect water from his well to put out a fire in his house, that the person was
prompted by necessity and the defense could be used in tort claim and it could
be used against trespass of property. The level of necessity should be very
high. Basically the wrong done should be smaller while comparing it to the
importance of right done.

Act under Statutory Authority:

If the act done was under the authority of some statute that is a valid defense.
For example, if there is a railway line near your house and the noises of the
train passing disturbs then you have no remedy because the construction and
the use of the railway is authorized under a statute. However, this does not
give the authorities the license to do what they want unnecessarily; they must
act in a reasonable manner. I have an example for this from my own life, there
was a telephone exchange in my locality and the generators which were used
were of very high frequency which was permitted in a residential area, the
court asked the exchange to be removed from that place.
Every person has a right to sue another person and every person can be sued
by another person. In India a minor can sue just like an adult, the only
difference is that the tort action will have to be put forth and proceeded with,
in court, by an adult acting on behalf of a minor. In case a minor is sued than,
his parents or guardian will have to pay damages to the plaintiff, also the minor
could be held liable. Also companies can be sued for the actions of its
employees committed when acting as employees of the company i.e. on duty.
The judicial authority cannot be sued if they are acting with their capacity. Also
the government cannot be sued for any tort claim arising while it is acting
within its governmental or sovereign capacity.
Vicarious liability: This deals where a person is liable for the acts of others.
This happens where the person who committed the act did it on behalf of
someone else. In this case of vicarious liability, both, the person at whose
behest the act is done as well as the person who does the act is liable.
Vicarious liability can arise from the following relationships

Damages in Tort Law

The word tort in law means a wrong or injury, which has certain characters,
the most important of which is that is it redressable in an action for damages
at the instance of the person wronged or injured. We can consider assault,
libel, trespass and nuisance as few examples. A tort, precisely, is the violation
of a right of a person or a breach of duty of another towards him/her.
In tort law, a remedy in the form of monetary compensation is given to the
aggrieved party. Damages, in a legal sense, is the sum of money, the law
impose for a breach of duty or violation of some right. More appropriately,
damages are money claimed by, or ordered to be paid to, a person as
compensation for loss or injury. Generally there are two categories of
a. Compensatory
b. Punitive
The term damages typically includes both categories, but the term actual
damages is synonymous with compensatory damages and excludes punitive
damages. Compensatory damages are intended to relieve the injured party for
his loss or injury.
There are other modifying terms placed in front of the word damages like
liquidated damages (contractually established damages) and nominal
damages (where the court awards a nominal amount).
The aim of tortious damages is to put the claimant back into the position
he/she was in, pre-tort. The claimant will, therefore, be able to recover
reliance loss. Damages in tort are subjected to the principles of remoteness,
causation ad mitigation. The basic principle is that it should be tried that the
claimant be fully compensated for loss as far as this can be done by an award
of money.
Efficient damages awards are critical to the optimal functioning of the tort
system. Though a number of rules exist for damage calculation, none are the
rule in every situation. Optimal damage award depends on:
a. The nature of the injury


The relationship of the parties and the type of risk

The liability rule
Whether liability is individual or vicarious
Any existing imperfections

Damages are the most important remedy which the plaintiff can avail of after
the tort is committed. They are of various kinds:
Nominal damages:
Nominal damages awarded to an individual in an action where the person has
not suffered any substantial injury or loss for which he or she must be
This kind of damages reflects a legal recognition that a plaintiff's rights have
been violated through a defendant's breach of duty or wrongful conduct. The
amount awarded is ordinarily a trifling sum, such as a dollar, which varies
according to the circumstances of each case. In certain jurisdictions, the
amount of the award might include the costs of the lawsuit.
In general, nominal damages may be recovered by a plaintiff who is successful
in establishing that he or she has suffered a loss or injury as a result of the
defendant's wrongful conduct but is unable to adequately set forth proof of
the nature and extent of the injury.
For example, an injured plaintiff who proves that a defendant's actions caused
the injury but fails to submit medical records to show the extent of the injury
may be awarded only nominal damages.
The amount awarded is generally a small, symbolic sum, although in some
jurisdictions it may equal the costs of bringing the lawsuit.
The most famous case of nominal damages was when Prime Minister Winston
Churchill was awarded a shilling (about 25 cents) in a libel lawsuit he had
brought against author Louis Adamic for writing that Churchill had been drunk
during a dinner at the White House. The Prime Minister was vindicated, but
the jury could not find that his towering reputation had been damaged.

In another case of Constantine v. Imperial London Hotels Ltd., a West Indian

cricketer was refused accommodation at a London hotel because of his
nationality. He stayed at another hotel arranged by the defendants and he
suffered no loss. It was held by Birkett, J. that nominal damages of five guineas
are awarded in respect of defendants breach of their common law duty as
innkeepers to provide accommodation for any traveler.
When a wrong is actionable per se, as for example, in the case of trespass,
damage to the plaintiff is presumed and an action lies even though in fact the
plaintiff may not have suffered any loss. To justify the concept the nominal
damages, Holt, C. J. said, If a man another cuff on the ear, though it costs him
nothing, not so much as a little diachylon, yet he shall have his action against
another for riding over his ground, though it did him no damage; for it is an
invasion of his property and the other has no right to come here.
Contemptuous Damages:
Contemptuous damages are awarded when the level of harm caused to the
claimant is low and the court feels that the claimant was wrong to bring a
claim. They are the mirror image of nominal damages, in that the successful
plaintiff is made to pay damages for bringing the lawsuit.
Let us consider the example: Green and Brown are next-door neighbors who
have never gotten along. Greens dog wanders onto Browns property one day
and relieves himself. Brown steps in the dogs faces, is disgusted, and sues
Green for trespass and for failing to control his dog. The court finds that Brown
was technically legally correct and thus he must win the lawsuit, but that the
lawsuit was rather ridiculous and wasted everybodys time. The court will
award damages in the amount of the smallest monetary amount, to make this
statement to Brown.
Contemptuous damages are a derisory amount awarded to show disapproval
at the bringing of a claim. This is where a court awards a very small amount of
damages to indicate the courts disapproval of the court action having been
brought at all. This might be relevant in a defamation action, where the court
considers that the person bringing the action already has a poor reputation,
and that the false statement made about the person is unlikely to damage
their reputation much further.

It is to be distinguished from nominal damages because nominal damages are

awarded when the plaintiff has suffered no loss, whereas contemptuous
damages are awarded when the plaintiff has suffered some loss but he does
not deserve to be fully compensated.

Compensatory Damages:
Compensatory damages are recovered in payment for actual injury, which does
not include punitive damages (to be discussed later). It is a sum of money
awarded in a civil action by a court to indemnify a person for the particular
loss, detriment or injury suffered as a result of the unlawful conduct of
another. These damages provide a plaintiff with the monetary amount
necessary to replace what was lost and nothing more.
One of the more heated issues facing the U.S. legal system during the past
quarter century has been the call for reform of states Tort Laws. Some Health
Care providers and other organizations have sought to limit the amount of
damages a plaintiff can receive for pain and suffering because they claim that
large jury awards in Medical Malpractice cases cause premiums on medical
insurance policies to rise, thus raising the overall costs of medical services.
California took the lead in addressing concerns with rising medical costs when
it enacted the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, California Civil Code
3333.2 (1997). The act limits the recoverable amount for non-economic loss,
such as pain and suffering, to $250,000 in actions based on professional
Negligence against certain health care providers. Although the statute has
been the subject of numerous court challenges, it remains the primary
example of a state's efforts to curb medical costs through tort reform.
Other states have sought to follow California's lead, though efforts to limit
compensatory damages have met with considerable resistance. Opponents
claim that because these limitations greatly restrict the ability of juries and
courts to analyze the true damage that plaintiffs have suffered, defendants
avoid paying an amount equal to the harm inflicted upon the plaintiffs.
Medical organizations, such as the American Medical Association continue to
advocate for limitations on damages, however, and they have sought to
encourage state legislatures to enact such provisions.

Aggravated Damages:
Damages awarded by a court to reflect the exceptional harm done to a plaintiff
of a tort action. When insult or injury to the plaintiffs feelings has been
caused, the court may take into account the motive for the wrong and award
an increased amount of damages.
Aggravated damages are an award, or an augmentation of an award, of
compensatory damages for non-pecuniary losses. They are designed to
compensate the plaintiff, and they are measured by the plaintiff's suffering.
Such intangible elements as pain, anguish, grief, humiliation, wounded pride,
damaged self-confidence or self-esteem, loss of faith in friends or colleagues,
and similar matters that are caused by the conduct of the defendant; that are
of the type that the defendant should reasonably have foreseen in tort cases
or had in contemplation in contract cases; that cannot be said to be fully
compensated for in an award for pecuniary losses; and that are sufficiently
significant in depth, or duration, or both, that they represent a significant
influence on the plaintiff's life, can properly be the basis for the making of an
award for non-pecuniary losses or for the augmentation of such an award.
Aggravated damages are an augmentation of general damages to compensate
for aggravated injury.
Punitive Damages:
Punitive damages are triggered by conduct that may be described by such
epithets as high-handed, malicious, vindictive, and oppressive. They are
awarded where the court feels that the award of compensatory damages will
not achieve sufficient deterrence and that the defendant's actions must be
further punished. Punitive damages bear no relation to what the plaintiff
should receive by way of compensation. Their aim is not to compensate the
plaintiff, but rather to punish the defendant. ...They are in the nature of a fine
which is meant to act as a deterrent to the defendant and to others from
acting in this manner. It is important to emphasize that punitive damages
should only be awarded in those circumstances where the combined award of
general and aggravated damages would be insufficient to achieve the goal of
punishment and deterrence.

As explained by McIntyre. J., "Punitive damages, as the name would indicate,

are designed to punish. In this, they constitute an exception to the general
common law rule that damages are designed to compensate the injured, not
to punish the wrongdoer.
Rules to Quantify Damages
Damages in case of shortening of expectation of life:
The House of Lords laid down certain rules to determine the quantum of
damages, in situations where a persons normal span of life is shortened due to
the wrongs done by the defendant1:
The test to determine compensation is not the length of time of life of
which a person has been deprived, but it should be the prospect of a
predominantly happy life.
The test of happiness of life is not to be subjective, i.e., how the
deceased thought about the chances of his own happiness, the test is an
objective one.
Very moderate damages should be should be allowed for an action
under this head
The economic and social position of a deceased has to be ignored in
assessing such damages as the happiness of life does not necessarily
depend on such things.
Damages in case of death of a person:
Interest Theory: Here the dependants are paid such lump sum the interest
from which would be equivalent to the loss suffered by them. It has to be seen
as to how much interest a certain amount will bring if invested in a fixed
deposit. Thus if the loss to any dependant is assessed at x, such sum could be
awarded by way of compensation, which will fetch that much interest every
month to such dependant.

We can consider the case of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v.
Campbell2, where the Utah Supreme Court decided on the quantum of
damages to be paid using the multiplier theory.
Other instances of damage calculation:
a. In some cases, the courts deduct a percentage of the capitalized amount
in view of the fact of uncertainties like the deceased or dependants
chance of dying before the expiry of the years for which the multiplier
has been used.
b. While deciding on the quantum of damage under the (Indian) Fatal
Accidents Act, 1855, factors such as if the plaintiff was being supported
by the deceased or had a legal claim to be supported or if the plaintiff
can claim damages when the deceased was not an employed person,
needs to be kept in mind.

After reading articles on the law of torts and discussing this topic with my
friends I feel that the law of torts is not much developed in India. But the tort
law has provided physical security to the people. Tort law evolved through the
common law. Historically, basic common law principles were applied to solve
legal problems. In the nineteenth century, there was a movement towards
systematizing tort law.
Economic analysis has greatly enriched our understanding of damage rules. It
reveals that damages serve a complex and multi-faceted role: deterring risk
takers, helping victims spread risks and compensating them for their losses.
This has also helped us to design tort liability and design rules, which can guide
legislators and courts as they design tort liability and damage rules.
It is suggested that at present damage awards for serious personal injury and
death generally are not sufficiently large to induce potential injurers to take
due care and engage in optimal activity levels. Yet economic analysis also
shows that victims of physical injuries may be receiving too much
compensation. This suggests decoupling of defendants liability from victims
compensation should be considered.
While considering the situation in India, it can be seen that all the rules for the
purpose of damage calculation are not predominantly utilized. The Multiplier
Rule is extensively used to decide on damages in cases of death due to tort.
The Law of Torts is not well developed in India as in countries like the United
States of America and the United Kingdom. Hence applicability of its various
aspects is also limited in the country.
Damages form a very integral part of Tort Law. The Legislature should come up
with sufficient and practical rules and theories for computation of quantum of
damages. This will lead to a decrease in ambiguities that we come across in
various cases regarding the calculation of compensation.


Tort Winfield and Jolowitz


Textbook on Torts Salmond and Heuston


The law of Torts Ratanlal and Dhirajlal


Law of Tort P.S.A Pillai


Law of Torts R.K. Bhangia