DR.P.R.L.RAJAVENKATESAN

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR(SENIOR)

VIT LAW SCHOOL

CHENNAI

LAW OF TORTS

THEORIES

WIDER AND NARROWER THEORY WINFIELD AND POLLOCK All injuries done to another person are

torts unless there is justifications recognized by law.

When a tort is specific, it is narrowed down to a particular wrong. But when it is not specific, and considered at a wider level that all harms without legal justifications are torts, then, it is in a wider sense.

THEORIES

PIGEON HOLE THEORY Salmond and Glanville Williams. Law of Torts consist of a ‘net-set’ of

pigeon holes, each containing a specific tort such as assault, battery, deceit, slander, negligence, etc., If the defendant’s wrong does not fit in any of these pigeon holes, then he has committed ‘no tort’.

DIFFERENT BETWEEN TORT AND CRIME

TORT PRIVATE WRONG MENS REA NOT

NECESSARY THE SUIT IS FOR

DAMAGES COMPOUNDING

POSSIBLE NOT CODIFIED

CRIME PUBLIC WRONG MENS REA THE SUIT IS FOR

PUNISHMENT COMPOUNDING

NOT POSSIBLE CODIFIED

TORTTORT CONTRACTCONTRACT

RIGHT IN REM UNLIQUIDATED

DAMAGES DOCTRINE OF

PRIVITY OF CONTRACT NOT APPLICABLE

MOTIVE IS MATERIAL

RIGHT IN PERSONAM

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES

DOCTRINE OF PRIVITY OF CONTRACT APPLY

MOTIVE IS IMMATERIAL

DIFFERENT BETWEEN TORT AND CONTRACT

DAMNUM SINE INJURIA

DAMNUM-Damage-loss Of Money,health,service

INJURIA-Infringement of Legal Rights or Breach of Legal Rights

Damages or loss without injury Gloucester V. Grammer School

1441 YB 11 Henry IV , 47 Bona fide competition can afford

no ground of action.

Mayor of Bradford v. Pickles,1895 AC 587.

Defendant were annoyed when the Bradford corporation refused to purchase his land in connection with the scheme of water supply for the inhabitants of the town.

In revenge, defendant sank a shaft on his own land and which diminished and discoloured the underground water flowing to the land of plaintiff

No cause of action

Mogul Steamship Co v. McGregor ,Gow & Co., 1892 AC 25

Ship-owner, who shipped tea from China to English

Rival ship-owner Special Concession to Customer Plaintiff is not entitled to get damages. Competition with deliberate infliction

of harm affords no ground of action.

P.Seetharamayya v. Mahalkshmiamma,AIR 1958 AP 103

Defendant tried to ward-off the flow of water into their lands from stream by digging a trench and putting up a bund on their lands.

Rain water flowed to the plaintiff’s land caused damage.

filed case for Rs.300 The Court held that Owner of the land has a

right to build a fence upon his ground to prevent damages by the overflow of the river.

Anand Singh v. Ram Chandra,AIR 1953 MP 28

Defendant built pucca walls on his land

Water between defendant house and plaintiff house

Suit for Rs.100 Plaintiff has not got any

easementary rights The rule of law is that the exercise

of an ordinary right is no wrong even if it cause damage.

Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Board of Highschool and Intermediate Education,AIR 1981 All 46.

Appellant –student had suffered loss of one year due to his being detained for shortage of attention but his detention was found by the court to be illegal.

The principal not having maintained the attendance register according to the regulation of the board, it was held that the suit for compensation for the loss suffered by the student not maintaible.

INJURIA SINE DAMNUM

Its reverse to the Damnum Sine injuria. Infringement of private legal rights

without damage or loss. Ashby v. White (1703) 2 Lord Rayam 938. Chief Justice Holt said: a man shall have

an action against another for riding over his ground , though it does him no damage for it is invasion on his property.

INJURIA SINE DAMNUM

Kali Kishen Tagore v. Jadoo Lal Mullick 61 A 190.

The plaintiff and defendant were proprietors of opposite banks of a water channel.

The plaintiff sued defendant for an injunction for the demolition of a wall which the defendant had built for the protection of his own land, but which encroached to the extent of about 6 feet on to the bed of the channel.

Calcutta High court-plaintiff succeeded Privy Council reversed.

INJURIA SINE DAMNUM

Chunni Lal v. Kripa Shanker, (1906) 8 Bom LR 838.

It was held that “if the refusal is not in good faith , which implies due care and diligence, the person refusing to register the vote will be liable”.

Foundation of Tortious Liability

All injuries done by one person to another are torts, unless some justification recognised by law.

There is a definite number of torts outside which liability in tort does not exist.

Foundation of Tortious Liability

My duty is to hurt nobody by word or deed.

Honest Vivere –lead life free from crime and scandal.

Alterum non leadere- hurt nobody by word or deed and be true and just in all your dealing

Foundation of Tortious Liability

Salmond said that “Just as criminal law consist of a body of rules establishing specific offences , so the law of torts consists of a body of rules establishing specific injuries ”

Malice

Act done in bad intention Evil intent Wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or

excuse defamation malicious prosecution Malice is essential in the torts of deceit ,

conspiracy, malicious prosecution and injurious falsehood.

MOTIVE

Motive means ulterior intent or inner drive which signifies the reason for a man’s conduct.

Chief moving force and moves the man towards a particular action.

Bradford Corporation v. Pickle 1895 AC 587 Nankee v. Ah Fong Motive of the person doing the act is immaterial. if it is lawful act, ill motive might be, he has right to

do it. If its an unlawful act, however good motive might be, he would have no right to do it. Motive and intention in such a question is absolutely irrelevant.

MOTIVE

Motive became relevant in the tort of defamation when qualified privilege or fair comment is pleaded.

Collector of Sea Customs,Madras v.P.Chidamparam,ILR 1876 (1) Mad 89.

MALFEASANCE

Commission of an illegal / unlawful act. Tresspass-which are actionable per se and

do not require proof of intention or motive. Jai Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. v. State of

Gujrat, (1994) 4 SCC 1. People in public office Misfeasance refers to improper performance

of a lawful act, such as, negligence

Non-feasance

Closely related to misfeasance, is the failure to perform a duty , which he or she is legally obligated to do.

Proksch v.Bottendorf 218 Lowa 1376 (1934) The supreme court of Lowa adopted these words-

Malfeasance,Misfeasance and non-feasance. Malfeasance is the doing of an act which a person ought not to do at all, Misfeasance is the improper doing of an act which a person might lawfully do and nonfeasance is the omission of an act which a person ought to do.

Intention

Intention is the state of mind Wrongdoer intent to commit act Motive is the ulterior object for which the act is

done whereas intention is the immediate object. Wilkinson v.Downstion defendant jokingly told the plaintiff that her

husband met with an accident and his legs were broken and hospitalized. Plaintiff suffered nervous shock.

Defendant liable irrespective of intention nuisance ,injury to person property,copyright