RELEVANCE OF MENTAL

ELEMENTS IN TORTIOUS LIABILITY

-Radhika Aggarwal (20158)
Motive
• A motive is a person’s state of mind that inspires him to do an act. It means the purpose of the act’s
commission.
• It is generally irrelevant in the law of torts.

• An evil motive does not make a legal act illegal.

• Damnum sine injuria.

• Bradford Corporation v. Pickles.

Exceptions:
• Nuisance (Christie v. Davie)

• Defamation (Radheshyam Tiwari v Eknath)

Intention
• Intention signifies full advertence in the mind of the defendant to his conduct, which is in
question, and to its consequences, together with a desire for those consequences.
• According to tort law, the liability may be incurred irrespective of whether the injury was
intentionally or accidentally inflicted.

Intentional Tort
• Battery (Talmage v. Smith)
• Assault (Cullison v. Medley)
• False Imprisonment (Rudal Shah vs. State of Bihar)

Unintentional Tort
• Negligence (Wilkinson v. Downton)
Malice
• Malice means spite or ill-will in the popular sense.
• In the legal sense, it means intentional wrongdoing, without a just cause or excuse or a lack of a
reasonable or probable cause and it is known as ‘malice in law’.
• Does not matter in cases of unlawful acts. (Town Area Committee vs Prabhu Dayal)

Exceptions
• Unlawful Act (Balak Glass Emporium v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.)
• Malicious Persecution (Abdul Majid v. Harbansh Chaube)
CONCLUSION
• An illegal act cannot become legal just because it was done with a good intention. Similarly, a
legal act cannot become illegal, just because it was done with a bad or evil motive.

• Exceptions- malicious persecution, nuisance and defamation.

• The intention is the fundamental component for making an individual obligated for the
wrongdoing, which is usually diverged from motive.

• While intention implies the aim behind accomplishing something, motive decides the explanation
behind committing or doing such an act.