TYPES OF TORTS

 INTENTIONAL TORTS
An intentional tort is one where a defendant knows that their actions would bring harm to
another person or the other person’s property. For example striking someone in a fight would
be consider an intentional act that would fall under the tort of battery; whereas accidentally
hitting another person would not qualify as “intentional” because there was no intent to strike
the individual.
Although it may seem like an intentional tort can be categorized as a criminal case, there are
important differences between the two. A crime can be defined as a wrongful act that injures
or interferes with the interests of society.
In comparison, intentional torts are wrongful acts that injure or interfere with an individual’s
well-being or property. While criminal charges are brought by the government and can result
in a fine or imprisonment whereas tort charges are filed by a plaintiff seeking monetary
compensation for damages that the defendant must pay if they lose.
Examples of intentional torts- Assault, battery, false imprisonment, conversion, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, fraud, trespass, defamation.
One such case of intentional tort is Laxmi Ram Panwar v. Sitabai Balu Dhotre (2011)1SCC
356, this is a case of trespassing.

 NEGLIGENCE

Negligence torts are not committed on purpose; however, may be the result of a defendant’s
carelessness. There is a specific code of conduct which every person is expected to follow and
a legal duty of the public to act a certain way in order to reduce the risk of harm to others. An
example of this would be flammable gas and explosives on a construction site causing
damage to someone’s property.
Unlike intentional torts, negligence cases do not involve deliberate actions, but instead are
when an individual or entity is careless and fails to provide a duty owed to another person.
The essential elements to constitute a tort of negligence are as follows:-
 Defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.
 He made a breach of such duty.
 Plaintiff suffered damages in consequence thereof.

Defences to Negligence – Apart from general defences available against torts, Contributory
negligence acts as a good defence in tort of negligence. It means when plaintiff by his own negligence
contributes to the act causing damage to him. The rule is that if a person suffers damages due to his
own negligence act, he cannot sue the other negligent person for damages.

One such case of negligence tort is Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1: AIR 2005 SC
3180, this is a case of medical malpractice.

 STRICT LIABILITY
Strict liability is a legal doctrine that makes a person or company responsible for their actions
or products which cause damages regardless of any negligence or fault on their part. A
plaintiff filing a personal injury lawsuit under a strict liability law does not need to show
intentional or negligent conduct, only that the defendant’s action triggered strict liability and
that the plaintiff suffered harm. What matters is that an action occurred and resulted in the
eventual injury of another person.
 Defective products are prime examples of when liability is maintained despite intent.
In lawsuits such as these, the injured consumer only has to establish that their injuries were
directly caused by the product in question in order to have the law on their side. The fact that
the company did not “intend” for the consumer to be injured is not a factor.
Examples of strict liability torts- Defective products, animal attacks, abnormally dangerous
activities.
Some cases of strict liability are:-
 Rylands v. Fletcher,(1868) LR 3 HL 330: LRI. Ex. 265
 Union of India v. Prabhkar Vijay Kumar ,(2008) 9 SCC 527 : ( 2008) 4

PURPOSE AND IMPORTANCE OF LAW OF TORT

The basic principle behind action for tort is “ubi jus ibi remedium “.It means where there is a right,
there is a remedy. Torts provide compensation for injuries to persons and property caused by the
fault of another. There have always been concerns about whether there should be restrictions on
tort law because of disagreements about who should bear the financial burden for an injury and
what injury should be compensable. Powerful lobbies of doctors, hospitals, insurance companies and
product manufacturers are always appealing to Legislatures to limit the ability of the public to obtain
compensation for violation of tort law. Consumers who are injured by defective products, victims of
sexual harassment, drunk drivers, and many other civil wrongs are always under attack with their
legal ability to be compensated for their injuries.

The purpose of tort law is to restore someone who has been injured as a result of the wrong of
another to the condition they were prior to the injury by awarding them monetary damages which
will pay for medical expenses, lost wages and compensate for physical and mental pain and suffering
as a result of their injuries.

Beyond this, however, is the role that tort law plays in punishing the misconduct of corporations and
individuals who cause harm to others through negligent misconduct. The existence of tort law makes
it more expensive for corporations and other potential defendants to be negligent or have negligent
policies. The fear of being in a lawsuit and having a jury determine what damages have been
incurred by a negligent corporations or individual, causes those potential defendants to be more
careful and to have policies to prevent injury. Without tort law, a corporation or individual may
chose not to be more careful particularly when being careful requires the expenditure of money.