Assessment Week – Task 1

Topic
Mental Elements in Tortious Liability

Assigned Intern
Jay Sharma
Richa Ayengia
 Mental Elements in Tortious Liability

Tortious liability occurs when a person causes any harm to the plaintiff's property, life,

reputation, or other assets and consequently, the aggrieved party receives monetary

compensation in the form of unliquidated damages. By "mental elements," we imply a

person's "intention" to cause legal harm to another person by infringing on his legal rights

with intention basically referring to a state of mind in which the wrongdoer is fully aware of

his actions and their repercussions. The presence of mental element forms is pertinent in

criminal law. Nonetheless, under tort law, its existence is determined by the circumstances

and facts of each case with its presence aggravating the damages. However, under the law of

torts the stance are as follows:

1. Fault when Relevant

2. No-fault liability

Fault when Relevant

In torts such as assault, battery, false imprisonment, deception, malicious prosecution, and

conspiracy, the person's state of mind is relevant in determining his liability. We must

determine if a particular wrongful conduct was done knowingly or maliciously. In some

cases, knowledge, along with reasonable care and substantial certainty, that the defendant's

actions would result in a tortious consequence, is sufficient to hold him accountable. While

comparing the defendant's conduct to that of a reasonable man and holding him accountable

only when his conduct falls below the level anticipated of a reasonable man, one of the most

prominent examples is that of negligence. These are frequently committed for a breach of a

duty of care that a reasonable person would have recognised under normal circumstances. For

example A drunk driver who injures a pedestrian by accident may not have meant to injure
the pedestrian. However, because driving while drunk presents an unacceptable risk of injury

to pedestrians and other drivers, he may be found accountable to an injured plaintiff for

negligence notwithstanding his lack of intent to injure the plaintiff. To illustrate with a

leading case in M.P. State Electricity Board v. Ramlal Vishwakarma, 1here a ten-year-old boy

died as a result of electrocution after getting into touch with a live stay wire buried in an

electric pole while electricity was running through it. The M.P. High Court held the

defendant liable to pay compensation to the father of the deceased child because they were

neglectful in their duties. Stating that the defendants were obligated to evaluate and monitor,

on a reasonable and regular basis, whether any current was flowing in the stay wire so that no

human or animals would be put in danger.

But we should also know that in some specific cases, the non-attendance of intention or bona

fide mistake is a very good defence, because if a defendant's behaviour is innocent inasmuch

as the act was caused by inevitable accident, the crux of this defence being that the incident

could not have been avoided even with appropriate care, and hence the claimant would have

surely incurred a damage, regardless of the defendant's purpose. For example, suppose A was

driving a car and was completely in control and followed all necessary precautions, but his

automobile suddenly loses its balance and collides with a pedestrian owing to a mechanical

breakdown. In this situation, the driver would not be held accountable because he took all

reasonable measures. The mishap was unavoidable. Similarly, necessity is viewed to be

asserted when the defendant's behaviour is not motivated by a wrongful purpose, but rather is

obliged by the circumstances to willfully inflict some smaller harm in order to avert a bigger

harm. Quite often, such emergency situations develop while other people are not there,

demonstrating the necessity to disobey the law for a certain urgency, which, while difficult, is

believed to be acceptable to some level. For example, if the defendant invaded his

1
M.P. State Electricity Board v. Ramlal Vishwakarma, 2013 SCC OnLine MP 2546
neighbour's land without his consent in order to prevent the spread of fire into his own land,

he will not be held liable for trespass since his behaviour was deemed reasonably required.

No-Fault Liability

Certain areas are completely irrelevant to the mental element, and culpability arises even in

the absence of improper intent or carelessness on the part of the defendant. These are the

types of torts in which the defendant is not directly at fault or makes a mistake but is

nevertheless held accountable as the responsible party for the conduct. This concept is

referred to as "no-fault liability."

These responsibilities may emerge as a result of the defendant's knowledge or purpose. Thus,

when these liabilities occur as a result of awareness, they are referred to as unintentional torts

or non-malicious torts, and when they arise as a result of purpose, they are referred to as

malicious torts or intentional torts. In such instances, the defendant's innocence or an honest

mistake is inadmissible. The conversion tort is an illustration of this. Thus, an auctioneer who

sells items on behalf of a client who lacks title to the commodities is responsible for

conversion, even if the auctioneer thought the customer was the genuine owner at the time of

sale. In the case of defamation also, the defendant can be made liable when he did not intend

to defame but his actions turned out to be defamatory.

Additionally, in the situation of vicarious liability, a person may be held guilty even though

he was not at fault. Rylands v. Fletcher2 established the strict liability rule. Under that law, if

a person makes an unnatural use of his land by gathering anything that is likely to cause

mischief if it escapes, he will be accountable for any harm caused by the object thus gathered.

2
Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330
In such a circumstance, claiming the defendant was not careless in acquiring the object or

allowing it to escape is inadmissible. Additionally, liability is severe when an individual who

is aware of an animal's deadly nature continues to do so. Similarly, the notion of absolute

responsibility has been acknowledged in the context of hazardous and intrinsically dangerous

industries.