Minor

• The majorities Act 1875,

age of majority,section 3
Age of majority 18yrs

• However, in the case of a minor for whose person or

property, or both, a guardian has been appointed or
declared by any court of justice before the age of 18
years, and in case of every minor the superintendence
of whose property has been assumed by the 
Court of Wards, age of majority will be 21 years, not 18.
 Negligence
• Under age 7: A child could not be negligent.
• Between age 7 and 14: There was a rebuttable
presumption that the child could not be negligent.
• Between age 14 and 21: There was a rebuttable
presumption that the child was capable of negligence.
• Age
• Intelligence
• Experience
Tyler v. Weed, 280 N.W. 827 (Mich. 1938)
 Contributory negligence
When contributory negligence is alleged against
any minor then the test is, what degree of care for
his own safety can an infant of the particular age
reasonably be expected to take.

The Pearson Committee (UK) in 1978 took the view

that a child less than 13 should not be held
contributory negligent. But, unusually in Armstrong
v. Cottrell and 
Morales v. Eccleston,
they were made liable
 Tort and Contract

A MINOR IS LIABLE IN TORT AS AN ADULT BUT THE

TORT MUST BE INDEPENDENT OF THE CONTRACT. A
MINOR’S AGREEMENT IS VOID EVEN IF HE
FRAUDULENTLY REPRESENTS HIMSELF TO BE OF FULL
AGE AS ESTABLISHED
IN SADIK ALI KHAN V. JAIKISHORE.
IN R. LESLIE LTD V. SHIELL [1914] 3 K.B.
JOHNSON V PYE, 1665
JENNINGS V RUNDALL, 1799
BERNARD V HAGGIS, 1863
Prenatal injuries
Congenital Disability (Civil Liability) Act’
(CDA) in 1976, Britain
‘Nasciturus pro jam nato habetur’
“The unborn is deemed to have been born to
the extent that his own benefits are
concerned".
Walker v G.N. RY. Co, 1891
Montreal Tramways v Leveille, 1933
Union Carbide Corporation v Union of India,
AIR 1992
 Corporations
Directors are the agents
Liable for
libel,tresspass, trover, conversion, negligence,
malicious prosecution or fradulent
misrepresentation
Poulton v L& S.W. Rly, 1867
Campbell v Paddington Corporation,1911
 Husband and Wife
• Married Women’s property Act, 1882
• Married Wome and Tortfeasors Act, 1935
• Law Reform(Husband and Wife)Act, 1962
Mith v Moss, 1940
Broom v Morgan, 1953
 Persons having judicial and Executive authority
Judicial Officer’s Protection Act, 1850
Section 1.—Section 1 of the Act may be quoted in full :
"1. Non-liability to suit of officers acting judicially, for official acts done
in good faith, and of officers executing warrants and orders. No judge,
Magistrate, Justice of the Peace, Collector or other person acting judicially
shall be liable to be sued in any Civil Court for any act done or ordered to
be done by him in the discharge of his judicial duty, whether or not within
the limits of his jurisdiction:
Provided that he at the time, in good faith, believed himself to have
jurisdiction to do or order the act complained of; and no officer of any
Court or other person, bound to execute the lawful warrants orders of any
such Judge, Magistrate, Justice of the Peace, Collector or other person
acting judicially, shall be liable to be sued in any Civil Court, for the
execution of any warrant or order, which he would be bound to execute, if
within the jurisdiction of the person issuing the same".
 Judicial Officer’s Protection Act, 1850
Now Judges Protection Act, 1985
IF THE JUGDE ACTS IN GOOD FAITH, BELIEVED HIMSEL TO HAVE THE
JURISDICTION TO DO OR ORDER THE ACT COMPLINED OF

JUDICIAL OFFICER’S PROTECTION ACT, 1850

NO PROTECTION TO THE ACTS OR WORDS COMPLINED OF WERE DONE

OR SPOKEN MALAFIDE, MALICIOUSIY, CORRUPTLY, OR WITHOUT
REASONABLE OR PROBABLE CAUSE SUFFICES TO FOUND AN ACTION
Sailajanand Pandey v Suresh Chandra Gupta,
1969

state of U.P v Tulasi Ram, 1971

Independent and Joint Tort Feasors
English law
Joint tort feasors
Independent tort feasors

In India
Composite tort feasors
Independent tort feasors

WRONGFUL ACT COMMITTED BY TWO OR MORE PERSONS

SINGLE DAMAGE
NO CONCERTED ACTION BUT SIMILARITY OF DESIGN

INDEPENDENT ACTION

AS MANY CAUSES OF ACTION AS THE NUMBER OF INDEPENDENT

TORT FEASORS

SEVERAL LIABILITY
KOURSK CASE, 1924
KOURSK,CLAN, CHISHOLM, ITRIA
Joint tort feasors
WRONGFUL ACT COMMITTED BY TWO OR MORE PERSONS.
IN FURTHERANCE OF A COMMON DESIGN.
MENTAL CONCURRENCE .
SINGLE DAMAGE.
JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY.

EX.
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT
MASTER AND SERVANT
PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND PARTNERS
BROOK V BOOL, 1928
Old rules
The first principle is that the liability of wrongdoers is joint and
several i.e. each is liable for the whole damage. The injured may sue
them jointly or separately.
The second principle was laid down in the case of 
Brinsmead v Harrison, where it was held that a judgment obtained
against one joint wrongdoer released all the others even though it
was not satisfied.
The third rule was laid in the case of Merryweather v Nixon, where
it was held that in common law, no action for contribution could be
sustained by one wrongdoer against another, although one who
sought a contribution might have been compelled to pay the full
damages. The reason alleged for this rule was that any such claim to
the contribution must be based on an implied contract between the
tort-feasors and that such a contract was illegally concluded with a
view to committing an illegal act.
Liability of joint tort feasors
But the above rules were virtually abolished by the sec 6(1)Law
reforms Act, 1935 now sec 4 the Civil Liability Act, 1978

The rule in Merryweather case is that a tortfeasor

who has been held liable cannot recover
contribution from other joint tortfeasors, being
unjust, has also been abolished by the Act of 1935
which, as per section 6(1), provides that a tortfeasor
who has been held liable to pay more than the
share of the damages, can claim contribution from
the other joint tortfeasors.
The rule in Brinsmead case being unjust,
was abolished by the Act 1935 and
therefore by the Act of 1978 which now
provides that judgment recovered against
any person liable in respect of any debt or
damage should not be bar to an action, or
to the continuance of an action, against
another person who is jointly liable with
him with respect to the debt and damage.
Act of state
•The act is done by the representative of a state
•The act is injurious to some other state or its subjects
•The act may be either previously sanctioned or
subsequently ratified
Buron v Denman, 1948
Secretatry of State in council of India v Kamache Boye
Saheba,
Haridial Singh v State of Pepsu, 1960
State of Saurashtra v Memom Haji Ismail,
State of Saurashtra v Mohammad Abdulla and
others,1962