What is tort

Tort n crime n contract

Damage

Remedy

Types of damage n remedy

Damum sine

Sine damnum
The word tort is of French origin and is equivalent to english word wrong, and the roman term
delicit. It is derived from the latin term tortum, which means twisted or crooked. It is commonly
used to mean a breach of duty amounting to civil wrong
Introduction

Different Philosophers defined the torts differently,the important one’s are here :

•According to Salmond , “It is a civil wrong for which the remedy is common law action for
unliquidated damages and which is not exclusively the breach of the contractor the breach of the
trust or other merely equitable obligation. “

•According to Winfield , “Tortious liability arises from the breach of duty primarily fixed by the law :
this duty is towards the persons generally and its breach is redressible by an action for unliquidated
damages. “

•According to Fraser , “It is an infringement of legal right in rem of a private individual giving a right
for compensation at the suit of injured party. “

•According to Section 2(m),The Limitations Act,1963 , “Tort means a civil wring which is not
exclusively a breach of contract or breach of trust. “

tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a civil wrong[1] that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm,
resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. It can include the intentional
infliction of emotional distress, negligence, financial losses, injuries, invasion of privacy and many
other things.

Tort law, where the purpose of a legal action is to obtain a private civil remedy such as damages,
may be compared to criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state.
Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which also provides a civil remedy after breach of
duty; but whereas the contractual obligation is one chosen by the parties, the obligation in both tort
and crime is imposed by the state. In both contract and tort, successful claimants must show that
they have suffered foreseeable loss or harm as a direct result of the breach of duty.[note 1][note 2]

The person who commits the act is called a tortfeasor. Although crimes may be torts, the cause of
legal action in civil torts is not necessarily the result of criminal action; the harm in civil torts may be
due to negligence, which does not amount to criminal negligence. The victim of the harm can
recover their loss as damages in a lawsuit. In order to prevail, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, commonly
referred to as the injured party, must show that the actions or lack of action was the legally
recognizable cause of the harm. The equivalent of tort in civil law jurisdictions is "delict".

Legal injuries are not limited to physical injuries and may include emotional, economic,[note 3] or
reputational injuries as well as violations of privacy, property, or constitutional rights. Torts comprise
such varied topics as automobile accidents, false imprisonment, defamation, product liability,
copyright infringement, and environmental pollution (toxic torts).
Compared to criminal cases, tort lawsuits have a lower burden of proof, namely "preponderance of
evidence",[note 4] rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. Sometimes a claimant may prevail in a
tort case even if the defendant who allegedly caused harm were acquitted in an earlier criminal trial.
For example, O. J. Simpson was acquitted in criminal court of murder but later found liable for the
tort of wrongful death.

NOTES

1.^ Under the UK Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, a person may enforce a contract even
when they are not a party to it.

2.^ If an employee injures himself in the course and scope of employment, he will be both tortfeasor
and claimant under the rule of vicarious liability.

3.^ Pure economic loss is rarely recoverable.

4.^ where the plaintiff/claimant must prove their case on "a balance of probability"

5.^ The word is derived from Old French and Anglo-French "tort" (injury), which is derived from
Medieval Latin tortum.[2]

Relationship to contract law[edit]

Tort is sometimes viewed as the causes of action which are not defined in other areas such as
contract or fiduciary law.[45] However, tort and contract law are similar in that both involve a
breach of duties, and in modern law these duties have blurred[45] and it may not be clear whether
an action "sounds in tort or contract"; if both apply and different standards apply for each (such as a
statute of limitations), courts will determine which is the "gravamen" (the most applicable).
Circumstances such as those involving professional negligence[45] may involve both torts and
contracts. The choice may affect time limits or damages, particularly given that damages are
typically relatively limited in contract cases while in tort cases noneconomic damages such as pain
and suffering may be awarded.[45] Punitive damages are relatively uncommon in contractual cases
versus tort cases.[46] However, compensation for defective but not unsafe products is typically
available only through contractual actions[45] through the law of warranty.

In the United Kingdom, plaintiffs in professional negligence cases have some degree of choice in
which law while in commercial transactions contract law applies; in unusual cases, intangible losses
have been awarded in contract law cases.[45]

The English case Hadley v. Baxendale (1854), which was adopted in the United States, split contract
and tort damages by foreseeability of the damages when the contract was made.[47] In the United
States, the pure economic loss rule was adopted to further prevent negligence lawsuits in breach of
contract cases.[47] This "economic loss rule" was adopted by the Supreme Court of the United
States East River Steamship Corp V Transamerica Delaval Inc. (1986) and expanded across the
country in a non-uniform manner, leading to confusion.[31] Among other examples, the tort of
insurance bad faith arises out of a contractual relationship, and "collateral torts" such as wrongful
dismissal involving possible overlap with labour law contracts.[16]
Overlap with criminal law[edit]

There is some overlap between criminal law and tort. For example, in English law an assault is both a
crime and a tort (a form of trespass to the person). A tort allows a person, usually the victim, to
obtain a remedy that serves their own purposes (for example by the payment of damages to a
person injured in a car accident, or the obtaining of injunctive relief to stop a person interfering with
their business). Criminal actions on the other hand are pursued not to obtain remedies to assist a
person – although often criminal courts do have power to grant such remedies – but to remove their
liberty on the state's behalf. This explains why incarceration is usually available as a penalty for
serious crimes, but not usually for torts. In early common law, the distinction between crime and
tort was not distinct.[48]

The more severe penalties available in criminal law also means that it requires a higher burden of
proof to be discharged than the related tort. For example, in the O. J. Simpson murder trial, the jury
was not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that O. J. Simpson had committed the crime of murder;
but in a later civil trial, the jury in that case decided that there was sufficient evidence to meet the
standard of preponderance of the evidence required to prove the tort of wrongful death.[49]

Many jurisdictions, especially the US, retain punitive elements in tort damages, for example in anti-
trust and consumer-related torts, making tort blur the line with criminal acts. Also there are
situations where, particularly if the defendant ignores the orders of the court, a plaintiff can obtain a
punitive remedy against the defendant, including imprisonment. Some torts may have a public
element – for example, public nuisance – and sometimes actions in tort will be brought by a public
body. Also, while criminal law is primarily punitive, many jurisdictions have developed forms of
monetary compensation or restitution which criminal courts can directly order the defendant to pay
to the victim.
Remedies[edit]

The main remedy against tortious loss is compensation in damages or money. In a limited range of
cases, tort law will tolerate self-help, such as reasonable force to expel a trespasser. This is a defense
against the tort of battery. Further, in the case of a continuing tort, or even where harm is merely
threatened, the courts will sometimes grant an injunction, such as in the English case Miller v
Jackson (1977). This means a command, for something other than money by the court, such as
restraining the continuance or threat of harm. Usually injunctions will not impose positive
obligations on tortfeasors, but some Australian jurisdictions can make an order for specific
performance to ensure that the defendant carries out their legal obligations, especially in relation to
nuisance matters.[38]

At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as
compensation for loss or injury.[1] To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of
duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognised at law, the loss must involve damage to property,
or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognised for the award of damages.[2]

Compensatory damages are further categorized into special damages, which are economic losses
such as loss of earnings, property damage and medical expenses, and general damages, which are
non-economic damages such as pain and suffering and emotional distress.[3] Rather than being
compensatory, [4] at common law damages may instead be nominal, contemptuous or
exemplary.[5]

Nominal damages[edit]

Nominal damages are very small damages awarded to show that the loss or harm suffered was
technical rather than actual. Perhaps the most famous nominal damages award in modern times has
been the $1 verdict against the National Football League (NFL) in the 1986 antitrust suit prosecuted
by the United States Football League. Although the verdict was automatically trebled pursuant to
antitrust law in the United States, the resulting $3 judgment was regarded as a victory for the NFL.
Historically, one of the best known nominal damage awards was the farthing that the jury awarded
to James Whistler in his libel suit against John Ruskin. In the English jurisdiction, nominal damages
are generally fixed at £2.[citation needed]

Many times a party that has been wronged but is not able to prove significant damages will sue for
nominal damages. This is particularly common in cases involving alleged violations of constitutional
rights, such as freedom of speech.