Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )

• What do you understand by Legal reasoning?

• Why Legal reasoning is a part of the Law Entrance Exams?

• How do we read and understand the entire law syllabus for an

entrance exam?
 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )

INTRODUCTION TO TORTS
What do we mean by damages?

• Damages are compensation payable to the sufferer by the wrongdoer for the injuries he caused to
the plaintiff by violating his legal rights". If, for example, the reputation of a person has been injured
the original position cannot be restored back. The only thing, which can be done in such a case, is to
see what amount of money is reasonably equivalent to the harm caused to the plaintiff's reputation.
 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )

INTRODUCTION TO TORTS
CIVIL WRONG
• Tort belongs to the category of civil wrongs. The basic nature of civil wrong is different from a criminal wrong. In
the case of a civil wrong, the injured party, i.e., the plaintiff, institutes civil proceedings against the wrongdoer,
i.e., the defendant.

IT IS NOT A MERE BREACH OF CONTRACT

• Tort is that civil wrong which is not exclusively any other kind of civil wrong. If we find that the only wrong is a
mere breach of contract or breach of trust, then obviously it would not be considered to be a tort.
• If a person agrees to purchase a radio set and thereafter does not fulfil his obligation, the wrong will be a mere
breach of contract.
 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )

INTRODUCTION TO TORTS
UNLIQUIDATED DAMAGES
• Damages is the most important remedy for a tort. After the wrong has been committed, generally it is the
money compensation which may satisfy the injured party.
• After the commission of the wrong, it is generally not possible to undo the harm which has already been
caused.
• For Eg., if the reputation of a person has been injured, the original position cannot be restored back. The only
thing which can be done in such a case is to see what is the money equivalent to the harm by way of
defamation and the sum so arrived at is asked to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.

• Rule of privity of contract is not applicable in torts.

 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )

TORT AND CRIME

• The wrongs which are comparatively less serious are considered to be private wrongs and
have been labelled as civil wrongs, whereas more serious wrongs have been considered to
be public wrongs and are known as crimes.
• Tort is a private wrong whereas crime is a wrong against the state.
• In the case of tort, the ends of justice are met by awarding compensation to the injured
party. In the case of crime, the wrongdoer is punished.
 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )

ESSENTIALS OF TORTS
Essentials of a Tort To constitute a tort, it is essential that the following three conditions are
satisfied :
• There must be some act or omission on the part of the defendant,
• The act or omission should result in legal damage (injuria), i.e., violation of a legal right
vested in the plaintiff.
• Legal remedy.
 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )

INJURIA SINE DAMNUM

• Injury without damage.

• It means that even though there is no damage, there is a legal injury caused.
• Eg., Not allowed to vote.
 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )

DAMNUM SINE INJURIA

• Damage without Injury.

• It means that there is harm caused to us due to the act of the other party, however, there
is no legal injury here.

• Eg., Opening a similar shop.

 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )

CASES
Ashby v. White (1703):

• Mr. Matthew Ashby, a cobbler, turned up to cast his vote for the British Parliament in December 1701. Ashby was
turned away by William White, a constable, on the grounds that “he was no settled inhabitant of the borough,
and had never contributed either to church or poor. In spite of this, his candidate won the election and no harm
was caused to him. But Ashby refused to take this lying down and sued for substantial damages. The defendant
contended that since Ashby had suffered no loss as his candidate had won the election, he was not liable. The
plaintiff’s suit was successful. Lord Holt C.J. upheld Ashby’s, submissions arguing that what was at issue was “a
most transcendent thing, and of a high nature”. Finally it was held that the defendant (White) by preventing
Plaintiff (Ashby) from voting violated Ashby’s legal right and was entitled to damages.
 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )
Harm suffered voluntarily does not constitute a legal injury and is not actionable.
This principle is embodied in the maxim volenti non fit injuria. A person cannot
complain of harm to the chances of which he has exposed himself with his free
consent and free will. The maxim volenti non fit injuria is founded on good sense
and justice. A person who has invited or assented to an act being done towards
him cannot, when he suffers from it, complain of it as a wrong. The maxim
presupposes a tortious act by the defendant. The maxim applies, in the first place,
to intentional acts which would otherwise be tortious. There are certain limitations
to the application of this maxim:

(i) It is no answer to a claim made by a workman against his employer for injury
caused through a breach by the employer of a duty imposed upon him by a statute.
But where the negligence or breach of statutory duty is on the part of an employee
of the plaintiff who knowingly accepts the risk flowing from such breach and the
employer-defendant is not guilty of negligence or breach of statutory duty, the
defence of volenti non fit injuria is available to the defendant.

(ii) Under an exigency caused by the defendant’s wrongful misconduct, consciously

and deliberately faced a risk, even of death, whether the person endangered is one
to whom he owes a duty of protection, as a member of his family, or is a mere
stranger to whom he owes no such special duty. The rescuer will not be deprived
of his remedy merely because the risk which he runs is not the same as that run by
the person whom he rescues. But where there is no need to take any risk, the
person suffering harm in doing so cannot recover.
 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )
(iii) To cover a case of negligence the defence on the basis of the maxim
must be based on implied agreement whether amounting to contract or
not. The defence is available only when the plaintiff freely and voluntarily,
with full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk impliedly agreed to
incur it and to waive any claim for injury. But when the plaintiff has no
choice or when the notice is given at a stage when it is beyond the ability
of the plaintiff to make a choice there can be no implied agreement and
the defence on the basis of the maxim must fail.

(iv) The maxim will also not apply when the act relied upon is done
because of the psychological condition which the defendant’s breach of
duty had induced.
 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )
Mr. A was the owner of a car and he had a driver- Mr. D. On January 19,
2021, Mr. A and Mr. D were travelling in their car wherein Mr. A got down at
a restaurant and told Mr. D to take the car back to Mr. A’s bungalow. Mr. D
was filling the petrol tank of the car, and two strangers- Mr. B and Mr. C took
a lift from Mr. D in his car. The car went ahead and the right-side front wheel
of the car flew away, the car toppled and Mr. D and Mr. C were thrown out.
Mr. C sustained severe injuries and ultimately died due to those injuries on
January 20, 2021. Mr. B and legal representatives of Mr. C claimed
compensation from Mr. A and Mr. D.

(a) Mr. D will be liable to pay the compensation.

(b) Volenti non fit injuria will be applicable and no compensation can be
claimed.

(c) Volenti non fit injuria will not be applicable and compensation can be
claimed.

(d) Mr. A and Mr. D both will be liable to pay the compensation
 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )
Rama was a spectator at a motor car race being held on a track owned by the
defendant company. During the race, there was a collision between two cars, one of
the cars was thrown among the spectators, thereby injuring Rama severely. Which of
the following statements is correct?

(a) Rama impliedly took the risk of such injury, the danger being inherent in the sport
which any spectator could foresee, the defendant was not liable.

(b) It was a negligence on the part of defendant and volenti non fit injuria will be
applicable.

(c) Rama did not take the risk of such injury, and she only consented to watching the
race and hence the defendant was liable.

(d) Rama was negligent and hence she suffered injuries.

 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )

Which of the following is correct about consent in volenti non fit injuria?
(a) Knowledge of the risk does not always amount to consent.
(b) Knowledge of a risk does not precede consent.
(c) Knowledge of the risk always amounts to consent.
(d) Mere perception of the existence of danger amounts to consent
 Telegram - @CLATMATERIAL2025 ( LGN )
Lily had placed spring guns in a wood on her ground for the protection of the garden. Karan, with full knowledge
that there were spring guns somewhere in the wood, trespassed on the land of Lily and was injured. Which of the
following statements is correct?

(a) Lily will be liable to pay compensation to Karan.

(b) Lily has not committed a tort against Karan by exceeding her right of private defence.

(c) Karan’s case does not fall within volenti non fit injuria.

(d) Karan had knowledge of the spring guns and wilfully courted the danger himself.