What is tort

Tort is a civil wrong in general which is not

exclusively breach of trust or contract but a
remedy. According to section 2(m)of Limitation
Act, 1963: "Tort means a civil wrong which is not
exclusively a breach of contract or breach of
trust."

 Not a codified as it is not passes by legislation

but the basis is customs, Precedents and
philosophy by experts.
 Adopted from UK
 It is derived from Latin word mean tortum
which mean tort in French and wrong in
English.
 Every tort is civil wrong but every civil wrong
is tort. So when there is specific law is decided
for specific case then it should be referred to
that but not general tort law.
 Civil wrong is violation of private law or right
of an individual person, where the courts goal
is to compensate the individual for loss in
 which the individual himself should fight sot
his case but not state.
 suffered. Eg: Breach of contract, trespass,
defamation.
A Criminal law is the violation of public law, where
the individual is being represented by state as it is
crime against state.
Eg: Murder, Rape
Unliquidated damages: in general it is penalty
which is not fixed and will be fixed by judge, which
is usually compensation
Liquidated damages: It is a fixed punishment
which is usually jail term or hung.
Liability conditions for tort
1.Defendant must commit a wrongful act which
can be an omission of an act one is entitled to
do.
2.The wrongful act must violate the legal right
of an individual.
3.The act a should be in such nature which
gives rise to legal remedy.
Damnum sine injuria
In general damage without injury(person who
suffered loss without violation of legal right)
Case law: Gloucester Grammar School vs. Rival
School Teacher ((1411), Y. B. 11 Hen. 4, f. 47, pi.
19)
Legal Principle – Damnum Sine Injuria Explanation
– Damnum Sine Injuria (Damage without Injury) is
the tort principle in which the damage has been
suffered but there is no infringement of legal right
i.e., there is no injury caused. Under this principle,
since there is no infringement of legal right, the
case doesn’t get enforced in the court of law and
damages cannot be claimed as well. Damage can
be of any form such as damage to one’s money,
image, health, property etc. and injury means
infringement of one’s legal rights. The takeaway of
this principle is that if one is exercising their rights
without causing legal injury to others then
tortuous liability won’t arise. To understand this
concept, let us look at the Gloucester Grammar
case
Facts- In the Gloucester school, there was a
teacher who left the school after sometime due to
an internal conflict. Due to rivalry he opened his
own school in front of Gloucester Grammar Case
and reduced his fee as compared to Gloucester
Grammar School. He made it 12 pence and
Gloucester school charged 40 pence, this was
done to entice students to take admission in his
school and already existing students to leave the
Gloucester school and join his own. The new
school got new admissions due to simplified
teaching and low fee and students of Gloucester
school also left and joined the new one resulting
in high monetary loss to Gloucester. The plaintiff
filed a case against the rival school teacher for
trespassing and asked for compensation for
monetary loss caused because of opening of new
school in same area where Gloucester school was
situated.
Issue –
 Whether plaintiff’s rights have been infringed
and should plaintiff get damages for the monetary
loss suffered by opening of new school?
 Whether principle of Damnum Sine injuria
applies here?
Contention – The plaintiff claimed that the
defendant opened the school to take revenge and
it caused monetary loss which is morally wrong.
Disposition: In the Favor of the Defendant
Held- Any moral, religious, or social wrong would
not count law of torts unless there is an
infringement of legal right which will generate
cause of action under torts. Here, defendant’s act
did not cause any legal injury but only damages
were caused in the form of monetary loss. Thus,
as per Damnum Sine Injuria, defendant is not
liable to pay any compensation and every
individual has right to carry on any profession,
business and employment as long as it is legal and
not infringing any person’s legal rights. No legal
remedy is available for loss due to competition.
Injuria sine damnum: In general injury to right
but no damage to the individual there is violation
of legal right but didn’t suffer any damages.
Case Law: Ashby-v-William-White and-Ors
Legal Principle –
Injuria Sine Damnum Explanation – Injuria Sine
Damnum is the legal principle where one’s legal
right is infringed and although legal injury is
caused, there is no any physical injury. Only the
violation which creates actionable cause of
action, even though there is no visible loss of
the sufferer is a tortuous wrong.
Facts – In this case even though the plaintiff
Ashby was a qualified voter and was giving vote
at parliamentary election the defendant (White)
refused to register his vote. The voter was
eligible to vote and his vote was in the favour of
winning party only.
Disposition- In the favor of the Plaintiff. Held- It
was held that since the vote was in the favour of
winning party, there was no actual loss suffered
by him by his legal right i.e., his voting right was
infringed and this was a civil wrong committed
by the defendant. Thus, he should get the
damages.
Men’s rea: in general it means guilty minded. A
person is only guilty if he has an bad intention
to dot that so. Mens rea is not applicable in civil
law bit yes in criminal law.
Maxim: actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
Kinds of tortious liability
Strict Liability: A concept of tort holds a
defendant responsible for their actions
regardless of their intent and knowledge about
the action at that particular time.
Case law:
Facts: There were two men living next to each
other, Rylands and Fletcher. Fletcher owned a
mill for whose energy requirement; he
constructed a water reservoir on his land. To get
this work done, he had hired independent
contractors and engineers. There were old
unused shafts under the site of the reservoir
which the engineers didn’t notice and thus did
not block them. Due to the negligence of the
contractors, the shafts that led way to Rylands
land burst when water was filled in the
reservoir. This caused huge damage and loss to
Ryland as the water entered into his coal mine.
Thus, Ryland filed a suit against Fletcher.
Issues: The question was rather brief: should a
litigant be put at risk, regardless of whether it
was someone else’s act, which resulted in an
aspect being removed on his territory? It was
remarkable in light of the fact that there was no
carelessness or expectation on part of the
litigant.” “
Judgment: The House of Lords dismissed the
supplication of the respondent and held him at
liable for every one of the damages to Rylands’
mine. As per the rule set by this case, if a man
expedites his territory and keeps there any
hazardous thing, a thing which is probably going
to do insidiousness on the off chance that it gets
away, he will be at first sight liable to the harm
caused by its escape despite the fact that he had
not been careless in keeping it there. Regardless
of there being no blame or carelessness with
respect to the litigant, he was held at liable
since he kept some unsafe thing on his territory
and the said hazardous thing has gotten away
from his property and caused harm.” “
Analysis: According to the rule set by this case,
if a person brings on his land and keeps there
any dangerous thing, a thing which is likely to do
mischief if it escapes, he will be prima facie
answerable to the damage caused by its escape
even though he had not been negligent in
keeping it there. The liability arises not because
there was any fault or negligence on the part of
a person, but because he kept some dangerous
thing on his land and the same has escaped
from there and caused damage. Since, in such a
case the liability arises even without any
negligence on the part of the defendant, it is
known as the rule of strict liability. Therefore,
this is one of the most important landmark
judgements in the history of the legal system
since it led to the formulation of a new concept,
a new idea and thus a new principle- the rule of
the strict liability. Based upon his principles,
there were certain qualifications given to decide
whether a liability is strict liability or not. Only
after these essential qualifications being
satisfied, a liability can be termed as strict
liability.”
Essentials:
1.Dangerous substances
2.Escape
3.Non natural use
Exceptions:
1.Act of god
2.Plaintiff own mistake
3.Consent of plaintiff
4.Act of third party

General Defences of tort

1. Volenti Non Fit Injuria:
https://legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-
9881-case-commentary-hall-v-s-brooklands-
auto-racing-club.html
2The wrongdoer is the plaintiff: Ex turpi causa
non oritur action which mean from an immoral
cause, no action emerges. It is impossible for
the plaintiff to receive damages if the
foundation of his case is an illegal contract.
https://thelawexpress.com/bird-v-holbrook-
case-summary
Essentials
There are 2 essential elements in the defence of
ex turpi causa:
1.The suit is brought by the plaintiff for the
damage caused by the defendant and the
defendant is fully responsible for such
damage.
2. The actions of the plaintiff have to be in a
specific course of action which is illegal.

3.Inevitable accident
4.Act of god
5.Private defence
6.Mistake
 1.Mistake of law
2.Mistake of fact
7.Necessity
8.Statutory authority
Extinguishment of liability in tort
https://www.toppr.com/guides/legal-aptitude/
law-of-torts/extinction-of-liability/#:~:text=In
%20the%20extinction%20of%20a,wrongdoer
%20is%20no%20longer%20liable.
Models of Discharge from liability
https://legalraj.com/articles-details/
modes-of-discharge-from-
liability#:~:text=Section%2082%20of
%20the%20Negotiable,by
%20cancellation%2C%20release%20or
%20payment.

Actio Personalis Moritur Cum Persona

https://bnblegal.com/actio-personalis-moritur-
cum-persona/

The Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-
4923-the-doctrine-of-res-ipsa-loquitur.html
Difference between Law of torts vs law of tort
https://www.ejusticeindia.com/
difference-between-law-of-tort-and-
law-of-torts/
Difference between Law of torts and
law of tort
https://blog.ipleaders.in/difference-between-
crime-tort-breach-of-contract-and-breach-of-
trust/
Negligence
https://blog.ipleaders.in/negligence-in-the-law-
of-torts/
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/medical-
malpractice/medical-negligence/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/
contributory_negligence#:~:text=Contributory
%20negligence%20is%20a%20common,the
%20doctrine%20of%20comparative
%20negligence.
https://www.tutorialspoint.com/composite-
negligence-meaning-and-
examples#:~:text=Meaning%20of%20Composite
%20Negligence,to%20as%20%22composite
%20tortfeasors.%22
Difference between torts crime contract breach
of trust
https://blog.ipleaders.in/difference-between-
crime-tort-breach-of-contract-and-breach-of-
trust/