Law of Torts 2022 General Principles

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TORTIOUS LIABILITY

Essentials of a Tort
Tort is an umbrella term, and different diverse wrongs are included in it which
originated and developed independently. So there is no universal definition for all
torts.

The most common essentials for tortious liability are:

1. Act or omission on part of defendant
2. Such Act or omission leading to injury i.e. violation of a legal right
Important tort law principles which we will look into today:
1. Injuria Sine Damnum
2. Damnum Sine Injuria
3. Vicarious Liability

Injuria sine damnum & Damnum sine injuria

- Injuria means infringement of a legal right
- Damnum means substantial harm, loss or damage in respect of money,
comfort, health or the like
- Sine means without

Injuria Sine Damnum: When there has been injuria or the violation of a legal
right and the same has not been coupled with a damnum or harm to the plaintiff,
the plaintiff can still go to the court of law because no Violation of a legal right
should go unredressed.
Ashby v. White (1703)
Plaintiff was Voter who was not allowed to vote by defendant, the
candidate plaintiff wanted to vote for won nonetheless, court held
defendant as liable.

Bhim Singh v. State of J&K (1986)

An MLA was wrongfully detained by the police because of which he
could not attend assembly session for which court awarded Rs.50,000 in
damages.

YG LAW 1
Law of Torts 2022 General Principles

Damnum Sine Injuria: When there is no violation of a legal right, no action can
lie in a court of law even though the defendant's act has caused some loss or
harm or damage to the plaintiff.

Gloucester Grammar School Case (1410)

The defendant, a schoolmaster, set up a rival school to that of the
plaintiffs. Because of the competition, the plaintiffs had to reduce their
fees from 40 pence to 12 pence per scholar per quarter. It was held that
the plaintiffs had no remedy for the loss thus suffered by them;

Mogul Steamship co. v. McGregor Grow and Co. (1889)

Similar facts as previous case where many steamship companies drove
the plaintiff out of business, court held no wrong has been committed.

Mayor of Bradford Corporation v. Pickles (1895)

The House of Lords went a step further and held that even if the harm to
the plaintiff has been caused maliciously, no action can lie for the same
unless the plaintiff can prove that he has suffered injuria.

Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal (1974)

Facts: The plaintiff made certain construction without complying with
the provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act. The defendants demolished
the construction. The plaintiff sued the defendants contending that the
demolition was illegal as some of the officers of the Town Area
Committee were acting maliciously in getting the construction
demolished.
Held: The Allahabad High Court held that the demolition of a building
illegally constructed was perfectly lawful. The Court did not investigate
the question whether the act was done maliciously or not as the same
was considered to be irrelevant.

YG LAW 2
Law of Torts 2022 General Principles

Vicarious Liability
The general rule of tort liability is that the person who causes damage must pay
compensation. In certain cases, however, liability can arise on certain persons who
didn’t cause the act themselves.

Respondeat Superior
‘let the principal be liable’.

Qui Facit Per Alium Facit Per Se

‘he who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself’.

If there is some relationship between defendant and third party then law can extend
liability to that third party, For Example:
o Partnership firms: here one partner could be held liable for default of other
partner.
o Master servant relationship: where master could be held liable for acts of his
servant.
o Principal Agent relationship: where principal is liable for the tort of his agents.
o Dead person: The liability may transfer to the living representatives of the dead
person.

Difference Between Servant and Independent Contractor.

Servant is under employment contract.
Independent contractor is under a contract for a service.
If a servant does a wrongful act in the course of his employment, the master is
liable for it but the master is not liable for the tort of independent contractor.
Now the question arises how to distinguish whether it is master servant
relationship or not.
Servant is under Direction and control of the master: A servant is an agent
who is subject to the control and supervision of his employer regarding the
manner in which the work is to be done.
An independent contractor is not subject to any such control: He
undertakes to do certain work and regarding the manner in which the work
is to be done. He is his own master and exercises his own discretion.
To an independent contractor the master can order or require what is to be
done, while in the case of a servant he can not only order or require what is
to be done, but how it shall be done

YG LAW 3
 Law of Torts 2022 General Principles

B. Govindarajulu v. M.L.A. Govindaraja Mudaliar (1966)

Facts: Gave car to mechanic for repairs, mechanic after repairs took it for a test
drive and met with an accident. Mechanic tried to share blame of accident on
the owner by extending liability to him as the relationship between him and
the owner is master servant relationship.
Held: Court held that the relationship of the mechanic was not of a servant but
of an independent contractor so liability is his own.

Wrongful Act Must Be Related to The Relationship.

State bank of India v. Shyama Devi (1978)
An employee of the bank who also acted in personal capacity misappropriated
funds of an account holder in the bank under the pretext of depositing money
in the bank, as the employee did all this in personal capacity and not in the
capacity of an employee of the bank, the liability of the misappropriation was
not extended to the bank.

The Wrong Must Be Done in Course of Employment.

Beard v. London Omnibus Co. (1900)
While driver was having dinner, conductor drove the bus to turn it around, and
while driving it caused an accident. In this case the master was not held liable
because the act the conductor was doing was not under his course of
employment as he was not authorized to drive the bus.

Limpus v. London Omnibus Co. (1862)

In this case the drivers had specific instructions in written to not race or
obstruct the path of other buses, but the driver did that anyways and caused
an accident, the employer was liable for the ensuing accident despite written
instructions to the driver to exercise care. The employer was liable because the
injury resulted from an act done by the driver in the course of his service and
for his master’s purposes; it was not done by the servant for his own purposes,
but for his master’s purposes.

Be part of YG Law Community and make studying law easier.

YouTube: YG Law; Instagram: YGLaw.in

Facebook: YGLaw.in; Twitter: YGLaw_in

Click here to view my courses

YG LAW 4
Protect pdf from copying with Online-PDF-No-Copy.com