Chapter 1: Introduction To Legal Knowledge: Fast Track Course Du LLB Entrance 2019 (Legal Aptitude)

FAST TRACK COURSE DU LLB ENTRANCE 2019 (LEGAL APTITUDE)
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO LEGAL KNOWLEDGE

To start with, you need to consider the importance of studying law, try to understand the
functions and ramifications of a legal framework, and realize just how vital the study and
furtherance of the legal system is against the larger backdrop of society Although law may
seem to be abstract and far removed from everyday life, it actually provides the framework
for our daily activities in the workplace and outside. Law is a set of rules that guides our
conduct in society and is enforceable through public agencies. In our society, law plays an
important part in the creation and maintenance of social order. From this it becomes
evident that law is a formal mechanism of social control.
Its very important to know the law as ignorance of law is not an excuse before the court of
law and the same is applicable to Law School Entrances.
In this module we will focus on legal knowledge, which will equip you with a basic
understanding of legal principles and the jurisprudence of law. This module has been
drafted keeping in mind the sort of questions that appear in Law School Entrance tests.
The module is divided into 4 parts. Namely:
1. Law of Torts
2. Law of Contracts
3. Law of Crimes
4. Constitutional Law
Each part has been designed to give you a comprehensive overview of the topic dealt with
and also provides insight into the intricacies of the subject.
COMPILED BY MEHAK AGGARWAL POWERED BY: LAWIT

TO START WITH THE CONCEPTS OF LEGAL APTITUDE,
Let’s understand the basic difference between civil wrong and criminal wrong with
the help of examples:
Civil Wrong:
An accident of an individual with another.
The Boss has not paid his employee for three months.
Voting rights being violated.
ALL ABOVE EXAMPLES DEPICT- CIVIL LAWS.

Similarly,
Criminal wrong can be inferred from the examples below:
 A murder by an individual affects the whole society.
 A rape of an individual also affects the whole society.
 Attempt to suicide/Suicide

CIVIL LAW CRIMINAL LAW
Definition Civil laws deals with the disputes Criminal law is the body of law that
between individuals in which deals with crime in which punishment
compensation is awarded to the is announced to the accused.
victim.
Purpose To provide an appropriate remedy for To maintain the stability of the state
causing any legal damage to an and society by punishing offenders and
individual or organization. deterring them and others from
offending.
Case filed by Private party Government
Decision Defendant can be found liable or not Defendant is convicted if guilty and
liable, the judge decides this. acquitted if not guilty, the jury decides
this.
Burden of proof Claimant must give proof however, "Innocent until proven guilty": The
the burden may shift to the defendant prosecution must prove defendant
in situations of Res Ipsa Loquitur guilty.
(The thing speaks for itself).
Type of Compensation (usually financial) for A guilty defendant is subject to

punishment injuries or damages, or an injunction Custodial (imprisonment) or Non-
in nuisance. custodial punishment (fines or
community service). In exceptional
cases, the death penalty.
Examples Landlord/tenant disputes, divorce Theft, assault, robbery, trafficking in

proceedings, child custody controlled substances, murder, etc.
proceedings, property disputes,
personal injury, etc.

CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION TO LAW OF TORTS
TORT is derived from the latin word Tortum, which means to be twisted; i.e. not straight.
Hence, Tort is a civil wrong in which damages are unliquidated (not pre-determined).
So, to understand any wrongful act, fist we have to examine whether it is a civil or criminal
wrong. If the wrong is a civil one, we have to find out whether the damages are pre-
determined or not. If the damages are not pre-determined, it can be concluded that it as a
tort.
How to determine that a particular wrong is Tort or not?
To fall under Tort, any wrong has to qualify following conditions:
1. There must be some Act or omission on the part of the plaintiff.

2. That act or omission must have caused a legal damage to the defendant.
3. There must be a legal remedy available.
Legal maxim stating 3rd qualification:
UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM- WHERE THERE IS A RIGHT, THERE IS A REMEDY!
Next, to understand the acceptability of Tort (wrongful action) in court we need to

understand the difference between Injury and Damage.
Injury- Legal injury, whenever there is a violation of legal right of an individual. It is said to
have caused a legal injury or Injury.
Eg: Right to speak, Right to vote, Right to privacy etc. if there is any violation of above said
rights. It will cause an Injury.

Damage- Any kind of loss, material, physical, monetary etc. can cause damage.
Two principles to be remembered in torts, they are as follows:-
1. Damnum sine injuria

2. Injuria sine damnum
Damnum sine injuria means damage without injury.
In other words, unless you infringe legal rights, it is not legally practical to harm others.
Therefore, there is no compensation for the plaintiff unless it infringes the legal rights.
Case laws for Damnum Sine Injuria-
1. Glaucester Grammar School Case– In this case, the defendant set up a rival school
near the plaintiff’s school, due to which the plaintiff suffered loss as his student
started joining the defendant’s school. Due to this competition, the plaintiff has to
lower down his fees. So plaintiff sued the defendant to seek compensation but no
compensation was given as there was no violation of his legal rights.
2. Ushaben v. Bhagya Laksmi Chitra Mandir– In this case the plaintiff sued the
defendants for permanent injunction as movie “JAI SANTOSHI MAA” was hurting the
religious sentiments as Goddess was depicted as jealous. No compensation was
given as there was no violation of the legal right.
3. Mogul Steamship Co. Mc. Gregor’s Crew and Co- All the steamship companies
united and drove the plaintiff’s company out of the tea trade company by reducing
their freights due to which the plaintiff suffered losses. No compensation was given
as the other companies were only doing marketing practices and also there wasn’t
any injury to the plaintiff.
Injuria sine damnum– Injuria sine damnum means injury without damage.
It is an infringement of an absolute private right without any actual loss or damage.

Therefore plaintiff will be compensated if his legal rights are violated even though there is
no actual loss or damage is suffered.
Leading cases for injuria sine damnum-
1. Ashby v. White- Plaintiff was confined by returning officer due to which plaintiff
was not able to cast his vote. Though the party in the election won the election but
there was violation of the legal right of the person, so here compensation was
granted.

2. Bhim singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir- In this case the petitioner was an
MLA of Jammu Kashmir assembly who was wrongfully detained by the police while
he was going to attend the assembly session. He was not produced before the
Magistrate before the requisite period. As a consequence of this, the member was
deprived of his constitutional rights. There was also the violation of the fundamental
rights to personal liberty guaranteed under article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In
this case the court ordered to pay exemplary damages of Rs 50,000 to the petitioner.
General defenses under tort:
Whenever plaintiff brings an action against the defendant for a tort, the defendant on his
part can the follow pleadings as defenses:
The General defences are as follows:
1. Volenti non fit injuria, or the defence of ‘Consent’

2. Plaintiff, the wrongdoer
3. Inevitable accident
4. Act of God
5. Private defence
6. Mistake
7. Necessity
8. Statutory Authority
Volenti non fit injuria: No one can enforce his right to voluntarily give up or give up.
When you invite someone to your home, you can't sue him for illegal intrusion, and you
can't sue a surgeon after undergoing surgery because you explicitly agree to these
activities. Similarly, anyone who agrees to publish something of his own can't file a lawsuit.
Example Case Law:
Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club [ (1932) All E.R Rep. 208]
The plaintiff was a spectator at a motor car race being held at Brooklands on a track owned
by the defendant company. During the race, there was a collision between two cars, one of
which was thrown among the spectators, thereby injuring the plaintiff. It was held that the

plaintiff impliedly took the risk of such injury, the danger is inherent in the sport which any
spectator could foresee, the defendant was not liable.
But, merely because the plaintiff knows of the harm does not imply that he assents to suffer
it.
For the maxim VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA to apply, two points have to be proved
1. The plaintiff knew that the risk is there

2. he, knowing the same, agreed to suffer the harm
For example In Smith v. Baker [(1891) A.C 325] the plaintiff was a workman employed by
the defendants on working aa drill for the purpose of cutting a rock. With the help of a
crane, stones were being conveyed from one side to the other, and each time when the
stones were conveyed, the crane passed from over the plaintiff’s head. While he was busy
in his work, a stone fell from the crane and injured him. The employees were negligent in
not warning him at the moment of a recurring danger, although the plaintiff had been
generally aware of the risk. It was held by the House of Lords that as there was mere
knowledge of risk without the assumption of it, the maxim volenti non fit injuria did not
apply and the defendants were liable
EXCEPTION:
RESCUE CASES: When the plaintiff voluntarily undertakes a risk to rescue somebody from a
danger created by the wrongful act of the defendant, he cannot be met with a defense of
Volunti Non Fit Injuria. The danger invites rescue. The cry of distress is the summons to
relief. A man cannot be deemed to have real consent if he acts under the compulsion of
legal or even a moral duty.
2. PLAINTIFF, THE WRONGDOER
Plaintiff the wrongdoer’ is based on the principle of “ex turpi causa non ortitur actio”,
meaning that, “out of a wrongful cause, no action arises”.
In such a case, Plaintiff has no legal means because the harm caused to him was the result
of some mistake of himself. However, the mere fact that a plaintiff is misbehaving does not

invalidate the right to recover a loss incurred unless torts or acts are linked to the damage
incurred as part of the same transaction.
Thus, if his harmful act is the real cause of his harm, he may lose it.
So to claim compensation his wrongful act should be independent of harm caused to him.
Let us consider the case where a bridge under the control of the defendant will give way
when an overloaded truck belonging to the plaintiff passes. If the truck is overloaded,
contrary to the warning notice issued, if the truck is installed, the bridge will not give way,
and the plaintiff’s wrongful act is the cause of the accident.
In above illustration, two situations can arise
First, in which plaintiff is the wrongdoer.
Second, in which defendant is the wrongdoer.
If the plaintiff is the wrongdoer his action will fail and other hands if the defendant is the
wrongdoer his act wrongful act is the determining cause of the accident no of the plaintiff,
the defended will be liable for example in the above illustration if the bridge has been so ill-
maintained that it would have given way even if the truck had been properly loaded, the
plaintiffs action will succeed. Thus, if the plaintiff’s being a wrongdoer is an act quite
independent of the harm caused to him, the defender cannot plead that the plaintiff himself
is a wrongdoer.
Under this defense it has to be seen as to what is the connection between the plaintiff’s
wrongful act and the harm suffered by him. If his own act is the determining cause of the
harm suffered by him, he has no cause of action.
3. INEVITABLE ACCIDENT
An accident means an unexpected injury, it can not be foreseen and can not be avoided,
despite rational consideration of the defense side, it is an inevitable accident. Therefore, if a
counsel can show that he can not afford to hurt even if it is intended to hurt plaintiffs, it is a
good defense.

In Stanley v Powell [1891] 1 QB 86 (QBD)] the plaintiff was employed to carry cartridge
for a shooting party when they had gone pheasant-shooting. A member of the party fired at
a distance but the bullet, after hitting a tree, rebounded into the plaintiff’s eye. When the
plaintiff sued it was held that the defendant was not liable in the light of the circumstance
of inevitable accident.
4.ACT OF GOD- vis Major (Latin)
An operation of natural forces so unexpected to anticipate it. (Pollock)
The act of God is a defensive measure used in cases of illegal acts when an incident occurs
where the defendant does not have control and damages are caused by the power of
nature. In such a case, the defendant is not responsible for the tort law of such inadvertent
damage.
God's behavior is an inevitable accident, the difference is that in the case of God's actions,
the resulting losses come from the work of natural forces, such as torrential rains, storms,
storms, tides and volcanic eruptions.
Two important essentials are needed for this defense:
 There must be working of natural forces

 The occurrence must be extraordinary and not one which could be anticipated and
reasonably guarded against.
WORKING OF NATURAL FORCES
Ramalinga Nadar v. Narayana Reddiar (AIR 1971 Ker 197) the plaintiff had booked
goods with the defendant for transportation. The goods were looted by a mob, the
prevention of which was beyond the control of the defendant. It was held that every event
beyond the control of the defendant cannot be said Act of God. It was held that the
destructive acts of an unruly mob cannot be considered an Act of God. It was observed that:
“Accidents may happen by reason of the play of natural forces or by the intervention of
human agency or by both. It may be that be that in either of these cases, an accident may be
inevitable. But it is only those acts which can be traced to natural forces and which have
nothing to do with the intervention of human agency that could be an aid to be acts of God.

OCCURRENCE MUST BE EXTRAORDINARY
In the case of Nichols v. Marshland [(1876) 2 EXD 1], the defendant has a number of
artificial lakes on his land. Unprecedented rain such as had never been witnessed in living
memory caused the banks of the lakes to burst and the escaping water carried away four
bridges belonging to the plaintiff. It was held that the plaintiff’s bridges were swept by the
act of God and the defendant was not liable.
5.PRIVATE DEFENSE
The law permits the use of reasonable power to protect people and property. If the
defender is using the force needed for self defense, we are not responsible for the harm
caused by it.
To use this defense three conditions need to be satisfied.
1. It should pose an imminent threat to personal safety or property. For example, A is

reasonable in using force against B, simply because he believes that B will attack
him one day, nor can he prove that this power is reasonable through revenge. The
attack is over.
2. The power of use is absolutely necessary to defend against intrusions that should
be used.
3. The power the defendant uses is proportional to the act being exercised and should
be sufficient to avoid imminent danger. It should not be excessive and should not be
proportional to the urgency of the opportunity. For example, in the case of A Strikes
B, B can not justify drawing a sword and cutting a hand.
4. After the danger has ended, it should not be used as a means of retaliation
. In Morris v Nugent [(1836) 7 C. & P. 572], the defendant shot the plaintiff’s dog after
the dog attempted to bite him and in fact was running away. Held, that the right of
private defense could not be pleaded. But, in a case where a vicious dog continued
attacking the defendant’s horses, and the defendant was compelled to disable the dog
with a spear which resulted its death, it was held that the defendant could successfully
plead the right of private defense. Turner v Jagmohan Singh (1905) fixing of broken
glass or spikes on a wall, or keeping of a fierce dog can be justified for the protection of
the property, but fixing up of spring guns without any warning to a trespasser (Bird v
Holberooke and ILOT v Wilkes), or live electric wire to keep the trespasser away
(Cherupin Gregory v State of Bihar AIR 1964 SC 205), cannot be justified.

6. MISTAKE
Either a fact or a legal mistake is not a general defense against tort. It is meaningless to say
that if a person deliberately obstructs the rights of others, he believed that the justifiability
exists. It is defamation in this situation to remove another umbrella that you believe
damages yourself and other people's reputation without intention of trespassing.
In Consolidated Co. v. Curtis [(1894) 1 Q.B. 495], an auctioneer was asked to auction
certain goods by his customer honestly believing that the goods belonged to the customer
he auctioned them and he paid the sale proceeds to the customer. In fact, the goods
belonged to the other person. In an action by the true owner, the auctioneer was held liable
for a tort of conversion.
7. NECESSITY
If it is necessary to prevent damage caused by greater sin, it is not feasible even if it is

intentionally caused to cause harm.
Inevitably harm is different from inevitable accident because it is intentional, but in the
inevitable accident, despite trying to avoid, throwing things and riding the boat to lighten
the ship It is a common example of the necessity to save boats and people, or to drag a
house to stop further spread of fire.
In Cope v. Sharpe [(1891) 1 K.B. 496.] the defendant entered the plaintiff’s land to
prevent the spread of fire to the adjoining land over which the defendant’s master had the
shooting rights. Since the defendant’s act was considered to be reasonably necessary to
save the game from real and imminent danger, it was held that the defendant was not liable
for trespass.
In Kirk v Gregory (1876) 1 Ex. D. 55, on the death of X in a state of delirium tremens, his
sister-in-lawy removed X’s jewellery, from the room where he lay dead, to another room,
where she thought they would be safer. However, the jewellery was stolen by some
unknown persons. Held, that she was liable, as there was no proof that her interference
was reasonable necessary.

8. STATUTORY AUTHORITY
If the legislature authorizes action, no action can be taken on the act. When an act is
completed under the authority of a bill, it is a complete defense and the injured party
does not have any remedy unless it is required to provide compensation for the damage
that the statue may provide, damage or instructions caused by acts authorized by the
legislature, Even if it was originally an infringement, it is not sue.
In Smith v. London and South Western Railway Co. [(1870) L. R 6 C. P. 14.] the
servants of a Railway Co. negligently left trimming of grass and hedges near a railway
line. Sparks from an engine set the material on fire. By a heavy wing, the fire was
carried to the plaintiff’s cottage, 200 yards away from the railway line. The cottage was
burnt. Since it was a case of negligence on the part of the Railways Co, they were held
liable.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
As Salmond observes, “In general, a person is responsible only for his own acts, but there
are exceptional cases in which the law imposes on his vicarious responsibility for the acts
of others, however blameless himself ”
Hence, in vicarious liability a person is jointly liable for the conduct of another too. The
maxim “Qui facit per alium facit per se” says “The one who does through another, does
himself”.
The common examples of such liability are: Liability of the principal for the tort of his
agent, Liability of partner’s for each other’s tort, and, Liability of the master for the tort of
his servant.
Different responsibility is a form of secondary debt, which means that human

responsibility relates to actions or omissions of other people who work under the
direction. This form of debt is tied to the owner of the act of the servant performed in the
course of employment. It is regarded as a civil law other than a contract as a type of legal
tort.
(A) Master - Servant Relationship

If a servant does a wrongful act in the course of his employment, then as per this doctrine
the master will be held liable for such an act. This is based on the principle of “qui facit per

alium facet perse”, which means, “He who does an act through another is deemed in law to
do it himself. Since the servant acts under the authority of the master, the latter should be
held responsible.
There are two questions:
(a) What kind of relationship can be said to be a master-servant relationship?

A servant is a person employed by another person (“master”) to do work under the latter’s
direction and control. The definition of a ‘servant’ in law is much wider than our ordinary,
everyday usage, the legal definition of a ‘servant’ is much wider - it includes anybody who
is employed by another person.
E, a company (remember that companies are treated as juristic persons), can be held liable
for the wrongful acts of any of its employees, such as a General Manager, done in the course
of the employee’s course of employment
A servant, however, is different from an “independent contractor” who is asked to do

certain work by another but is not under the “direction and control” of such person.
Another test that is used to identify a master-servant relationship is the hire-and-fire test.
If the person can hire and fire, then he is a master.
• A servant is under the control of the master while the contractor, though taking
instructions, is not under anyone’s “control”, as he himself decides how to do the work.
• The servant usually serves one master while the independent contractor may
serve different people at the same time.
For instance, while your driver may be your servant, someone you hire in order to carry
your business goods from one city to another will be an independent contractor who you
can only tell what to carry.
a. The Hire-and-Fire test: the master can hire and fire his servant at his will. Nothing
prevents the master from doing so. You can, of course, hire and fire your driver at
will - nothing prevents you from doing so.
b. The Direction and Control Test: the master directs and controls the work of the
servant, The servant is bound to follow the direction The essential point here is
that an independent contractor is not bound to follow your directions, and is not
under your control.
c. “The course of employment” It is not sufficient if the person for whose act another
person is being held liable is a “servant” of the latter. In order to proceed under
the principle of vicarious liability, another ingredient needs to be made out - the
act must be done “in the course of employment”. Determining what acts are in ‘the

course of employment’ has proved to be a tough task for the courts, but there are
some rough-and-ready solutions.
An act is considered to be in the course of employment if:
The act has been directly authorised by the master or comes within a group of acts that the
master impliedly requires the servant to perform.
An authorised acts can be done by the servant in one of two ways - rightly, or wrongly. Both
would fall within the course of employment.
Authorised act done rightly. When authorized act is done rightly the master is liable.
Authorised act done wrongly. When an authorized act is done wrongly even then the
master is liable. For example, a driver is asked to take five tonnes of oil from one place to
another and en route, he drives very fast and rams into and destroys a roadside shop.
Despite the fact that the driver drove incorrectly, the master will still be held responsible
since the task done wrongly was the authorised act of driving.
An act is considered to be outside the course of employment if:
It is an unauthorised act. Though the incorrect doing of an authorised act would make the
master liable, the doing of an unauthorised act will not. If your driver goes home and beats
his wife, this has nothing to do with the authorised act, and you cannot be held responsible
for the same.
(B) Principal-Agent Relationship
A situation may arise where the person for whose act you are made vicariously liable is not
your servant but merely someone who acts on your behalf. An agent is someone who is
authorised to do an act by another person (principal) and consequently, acts on his behalf.
Both, the principal and the agent are liable for such acts.
An example of the liability of agents is the actions of a managing clerk of the company.
When acting for the company, he is authorised by the company to do certain actions. Thus,
if he does something wrong while doing his job, the company, which is the principal, is
responsible.
Provided:
• The test of “in the course of employment” For the principal to be held responsible,
it needs to be shown that the agent was acting rightly or wrongly in the course of
employment.

• The agent is different from the independent contractor because the agent does an
act on behalf of or for the principal, while the independent contractor does not do the act
on behalf of a person, i.e., he is not authorised by another person. The independent
contractor is hired by a person do an act. The person who hires the contractor is not in a
position to authorise the independent contractor.
(C) Partners in partnership firm
In a partnership the partners are responsible for each other’s actions during the course of
employment i.e. during the conduct of the business. The partners can be held responsible
jointly and severally for each others’ actions. Jointly means “all together” while severally
means “each separately”. This means that for any partner’s actions, you can either sue each
partner separately or all the partners together, a partner can be held vicariously liable for
the wrongful acts of all the other partners.
Vicarious Liability of the State
Presently, the position in this regard is that the state is treated like any other employer.
The law has recognised the liability of the State for wrongs of its servants or agents. The
most common wrongs have involved the police or the customs authorities.
VICARIOUS LIABLITY OF THE STATE
According to Article 300 of the Indian Constitution, the Union of India and the states
can sue and can be sued. However, under what circumstances that can be done is not
stated.Following a number of high court and Supreme Court judgments, it appears
that courts hold the state liable for torts committed by its servant only in the
exercise of non-sovereign functions. In the exercise of sovereign functions, the state
cannot be made liable for the tortuous acts committed by its servants.
DOCTRINE OF STRICT LIABILTY AND ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
STRICT LIABILITY: This principle was laid down in the benchmark case of “Ryland’s v
Fletcher”. In some cases the defendant is liable to the harm caused to the plaintiff
even if there was no intention at the part of the defendant. In such cases even a
defence of inevitable accident is not a valid defence. This is known as principle of
“strict liability”.

Essential ingredients for the application of this principle are:
1. A person must have brought any hazardous/dangerous thing on is premises.

2. The thing brought by the person must have escaped.
3. It must be a non-natural use of land.
What was Rylands v Fletcher?
In this case, the defendant (Rylands) built a reservoir through an independent contractor
on his land to supply water to his plant. When the reservoir was filled, the water flowed to
the coal mine near the plaintiff (Fletcher), causing damage. The contractor partially
neglected that they did not properly seal the abandoned mines they encountered during
the construction of the reservoir, and through these wells, the water flooded the plaintiff's
mine. Since the engineer is an independent contractor, the defendant cannot be held
responsible for negligence. Even if the defendant is not negligent, he has to take
responsibility. When the defendant brings water into the reservoir, it will inevitably put it
at risk and should therefore be held responsible.
ABSOLUTE LIABILITY: In M.C. Mehta v of India (AIR 1987 SC 1086), the Supreme Court
developed new principles of tortuous responsibility, even in the UK courts. It evolves the
“absolute liability” rule into part of Indian law, taking precedence over the strict liability
rules set by Rylands v Fletcher. It expressly declares that the new rules are not subject to
any exceptions to the Rylands rules. The Rylands rule is defended by the fact that those
who establish dangerous industries in and around densely populated areas can escape the
responsibility for the damage caused. For example, when a substance escapes damage, it is
caused by the behavior of a stranger, for example, due to damage, there is no responsibility
under the rules of Rylands.
The doctrine of absolute responsibility, according to Rylands vs Fletcher, is that the

Supreme Court was founded in preference to the rules of strict liability. The highlight of the
absolute liability rule is that the highlight of the rule of absolutory responsibility is that it is
not subject to the exception discussed under the strict liability rule.
The determination of this route is based on two major gas leaks, the escape of methyl
isocyanate from the Union Carbide Factory (Bhopal Gas Tragedy) and the Supreme Court's
decision following the leakage of smoke gas from one of the units of Sriram Foods and
Fertilizers Industry that was. (M.C. Mehta vs India Association)
Since the first case undermined the lives of thousands of innocents, the Supreme Court is
concerned that industries dealing with hazardous substances can evade damages caused by
fatal gas leaks by proposing some exceptions under the strict liability principle. Therefore,

the Indian courts favour the principle of absolute liability rather than the principle of strict
liability.
 NUISANCE:
The word nuisance is derived from the French word “nuire”, to do hurt, or to annoy.
It has been observed that nuisance usually means anything that can annoy pain or
objection.
Nuisance as an illegal act means indirect illegal interference to the enjoyment of human
property.
Kinds of nuisance: Nuisance are of two kinds
 Private Nuisance-
Private inconvenience affects individuals, not the majority of the world. It gives the affected
person "Right in Personam" assertion. Private inconvenience occurs when the behavior of
the defendant affects the land and property or only to plaintiffs not enjoying it by anyone
else. Technically, when a person acts to affect other people and the latter does not exercise
complete right to his property.

Public Nuisance-
Briefly, public annoyance is defined as an unreasonable and illegal act of the accused and
causes substantial inconvenience and legal injury to the majority of people. It is triggered
by the defendant's law when a large number of people are negatively affected.
TRESPASS
The most obvious acts of trespass are:
1. Trespass viet armis or Trespass to Person.

2. Trespass quare clausum fergit or Trespass to Land.
3. Trespass de bonis asportatis or Trespass to Goods or Chattels (moveable property).
Trespass to person
The three major forms of intentional trespass are:
 ASSAULT
 BATTERY
 FALSE IMPRISONMENT
ASSAULT
Beating is a behavior of the defendant, which allows the plaintiff to reasonably understand
the behavior of applying batteries to him. When the defendant produces an impression of
impending battery behavior in the plaintiff's mind, the attack is completed.

The essentials of Assault are –
Intent to Cause apprehension – The attack must have an intention. If the victim has a
reasonable situation that the infringer is about to harm him, then an attack will occur.
 In the case of R v. S. George [9 C. & P. 483] it was held that pointing a pistol at one
person, whether or not it is loaded from a distance that could cause injury was held as
an assault.
Imminent Harm – It is essential that we need the ability to do harm. If a fist or stick can be
seen from a distance and you can not do harm, you can not regard it as assault. This harm
happens instantly and should cause reasonable anxiety in the minds of cautious people.
Some landmark cases that defined the scope of liability in assault are –
 R v. Meade and Belt [(1823) 1 Lew. C.C 184] – In this case, it was held that singing
menacing and threatening songs around the plaintiff’s house is not an assault.
 R v. Constanza – [(1997) Crim. LR 576] – The defendant amounted a hate campaign

against an ex-colleague by sending hate letters, following her home, writing offensive
words on her door and so on. The defendant contended that mere words does not
amount to assault. The judges overruled the rule from the case of R v. Meade and
Belt and the defendant was convicted of assault.
 Stephen v. Myers [(1830) 4 C. & P. 349] – The plaintiff was the chairman of a Parish
meeting, and the defendant was also seated at the same table. During the proceedings,
the defendant became angry and interrupted the meeting. The other members voted to
expel him from the meeting. The defendant advanced upon the chairperson to hit him
but was stopped. The defendant was held liable for assault.
 Hopper v. Reeve [(1817) Taunt. 698] – If a person is about to sit on a chair and the
chair is pulled, there is an assault as long as he takes to fall to the ground. The moment
he makes contact with the ground, it will become a battery.
BATTERY:
Battery refers to the intentional application of force to another person without any lawful
justification. Use of force, however, minor, is enough; physical hurt need not to be there.
Battery requires actual contact with the body of another person.

The scope of liability for battery was established in a landmark American case Vosburg v.
Putney [80 Wis. 523; 50 N.W 403] where the defendant and plaintiff were school
students who were seated opposite of each other. The defendant kicked the plaintiff
slightly below the knee, but he did not intend any harm. At first, the plaintiff did not feel
any pain but felt a pain a few moments later. The plaintiff had actually undergone a surgery
in the same place only a few weeks earlier. The plaintiff became severely ill and developed
a weakness in his leg for the rest of his life. The plaintiff was awarded damages.
Distinction between Assault and Battery:
Assault and battery are two terms that are frequently used interchangeably. In the mind,
the word "assault" means physically hitting others or injuring, but that is not the case. They
are two different legal terms. In fact, it is a "battery" meaning the action of physical force to
a person, "beating" means trying a battery, which means to believe that the act of a battery
will happen. Both of these torts are criminal offenses under the Criminal Code.
MAYHEM: Another tort related to assaults and batteries is a crime against those who are
called 'injuries' and who are unable to commit the victims of their body members to protect
themselves. It is sometimes called "intentional paralysis". Illness deals with the appearance
and loss of body parts due to physical injuries caused by torts.
Invalidating arms, hands, fingers, legs, feet, or eyes is an example of a disturbance. In some
jurisdictions, the difference between personal injury and batteries is not considered, but
rather, as it is done in countries such as Japan, the United States regards the disturbance as
a fuss.
The basic difference between assault, battery and mayhem has been established below:
ASSAULT BATTERY MAYHEM

FALSE IMPRISONMENT:
False imprisonment consists in the imposition of a total restraint for some period, however
short, upon the liberty of another, without sufficient lawful justification.
The essentials required to continue this wrong are:
 Total restraint on the liberty of a person.

 Without any lawful justification.
TRESPASS TO LAND
The occupation of land means “interference in possession of land without reason”. The
intrusion itself can be prosecuted, and the plaintiff does not need to prove any damage to
the intrusion. The mistakes that make up the invasion are neither force nor illegal
intentions, nor actual damage. "Every time you invade private property, even if it is so
small, it is illegal." Violations can be made without any reason by entering the land of the
plaintiff, or (2) staying there, or (3) by doing an act that affects the plaintiff’s sole
possession.

TRESPASS TO GOODS
Trespass to goods is defined as "wrongful physical interference with goods that are in the
possession of another", and is covered not only by the common law, but also by the Torts
(Interference with Goods) Act 1977. The "trespass" can be as little as touching or moving
the goods, given the right circumstances.
REMEDIES FOR TRESPASS OF GOODS
DETINUE: In tort law, Detinue is an action to recover for the wrongful taking of personal
property.
CONVERSION: A person, who treats goods as if they were his when they are not, is liable to
be sued in conversion.

DEFAMATION:
Defamation can be both i.e. a civil wrong and a criminal offence as well. Section 499 and
Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code makes it a criminal offence (bailable and non-
cognizable) whereas it can also be treated as a civil wrong under the Law of Torts which is
actually not based on any statutory law.
In torts it is a public publish of false statement which effects the reputation of the plaintiff.
Libel is a written or published defamatory statement, while slander is defamation that is

spoken by the defendant.
Defamation is a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right of freedom of speech and

expression [Art. 19(1) (a), Constitution of India] and is saved by article 19(2) of the
Constitution.

Three major essentials for defamation are as follows:
1. False Statement
2. Public Publish
Note: Public Publish doesn’t always refer to newspaper or magazine, mere intervention of
third party is also considered as public publish.
3. Plaintiff reputation must get effected.
INNUENDO: Sometimes the statement may prima facie be innocent but it has some hidden
or secondary meaning which will be considered as defamatory. Such statement are known
as innuendo.

NEGLIGENCE: In general, negligence means- Absence of care.
But in legal sense it means failure to exercise standard of care which the doer as a
reasonable man should have exercised in the circumstances.
Winfield and Jolowicz- According to them, negligence is a breach of legal duty to take care
which results in damage, undesired by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Essentials of Negligence
In an action for negligence, the plaintiff has to prove the following essentials:-
1. Duty to take care– One of the essential conditions of negligence is duty to take care.
In Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills Ltd, the plaintiff purchased two sets of woolen
underwear from a retailer and contacted a skin disease by wearing an underwear. The
woolen underwear contained excess of sulphates which the makers failed to remove
while washing them. The manufacturers were held liable.
2. Duty to whom– Donoghue v. Stevenson 1932 AC 562 carried the idea further and
expanded the scope of duty saying that the duty so raised extends to your neighbour.
Explaining so as to who is my neighbor Lord Atkin said that the answer must be the
persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to
have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the
acts or omission which are called in question.
3. Duty must be towards the plaintiff – It is not sufficient that the defendant owed a
duty of care towards the plaintiff. It must also be established that the defendant owed a
duty of care towards the plaintiff. Case– Bourhill v. Young 1943 AC 92.
4. Breach of Duty to take care – Yet another essential condition for the liability in
negligence is that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant committed a breach of
duty to take care or he failed to perform the duty. Case– Municipal Corporation of
Delhi v. Subhagvanti AIR 1966 SC 1750.
5. Consequential harm to the plaintiff – The harm may fall into the following classes:-
a.) Physical harm b.) Harm to reputation c.) Harm to property d.) Economic Loss e.)
Mental Harm. In Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa v. State of Maharastra 1996 2 SCC a
cotton mop was left inside the body by the negligence of the doctor. The doctor was
held liable.

When an accident explains itself that it was due to the negligence of the defendant the law
raises the presumption of “Res Ipsa Loquitor” which means “the things which speaks for
itself”. In such a case, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove his part.
In such cases, the plaintiff just has to show that:

• The incident happened;
• It caused injury; and
• The defendant was in control of or responsible for whatever caused the incident.
Once the plaintiff can show this, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor comes into effect and it is
up to the defendant to show that he/she was not negligent, i.e., the burden of proof is
reversed.
For instance the plaintiff was walking past a house when a barrel of flour fell on him from
the defendant’s window. Since the barrel belongs to the defendant, it can be said that he
was in control of the barrel. Clearly, there is a strong presumption that the barrel fell
because of some carelessness on the part of the defendant. In such a case the doctrine of res
ipsa loquitorwill apply and the defendant will have to show that he/she was not negligent.
Again, consider a scenario in which a clock tower in the heart of the city collapsed and
many people were injured. The clock tower belonged to the municipal corporation of the
city. This means that the municipal corporation was in control of and responsible for the
clock tower, and the fact that it collapsed suddenly suggests poor upkeep. The doctrine of
res ipsa loquitor will apply.

Contributory Negligence
Contributory negligence occurs when the plaintiff himself, by his/her own negligence,
contributes to the damage caused to him/her by the negligence of the defendant.
For instance, a person is sitting in a bus with his/her elbow projecting well outside the
window. The bus scrapes past a truck in a haste to overtake it and the person is severely
injured. In this case, though the bus-driver was negligent in driving with such a small gap
between the two vehicles, there was contributory negligence on the part of the injured
person since he/she had stuck his/her elbow out. Such negligence on part of both the
driver and the person is called contributory negligence.
If the conductor asking the passengers to sit on the roof of the bus and as a result of sitting
on the roof the passengers are injured, then they will fall within the fold of the contributory
negligence, having agreed to, and in fact for, being on the roof of the bus.
Contributory Negligence as a complete defence
Contributory negligence can, and is, used as a defence by the defendant. If the principle
given to you in the problem mentions that a person is liable for an act of negligence unless
he has also contributed to the injury, then the suggestion is that the contributory
negligence of the plaintiff completely destroys his/her own case.
Contributory Negligence as a way to reduce damages (a kind of partial defence)
In other words, the defendant’s liability is reduced to the extent that the plaintiff has
contributed to his/her own injury. Usually in India, the doctrine of contributory negligence
is used by the defendant to reduce the amount of damages payable to the plaintiff. This is
called apportionment of damages. The reasoning of the law is that the more you contributed
to your own injury, the lesser damages you deserve.
Let us take the example of a person who, when invited by the conductor, sits on the roof of
the bus. The driver turns sharply and the person is thrown off and badly hurt. In such a
case, the court may reduce the compensation payable to the plaintiff by almost 50%
because of his contributory negligence. This interpretation must be used if the principle
suggests that a person’s contribution towards his injury will reduce the damages he/she
would otherwise have gotten, or, in other words, that the defendant’s liability is reduced to
the extent that the plaintiff has contributed to his/her own injury.
Doctrine of Last Opportunity
Another course of action in cases of contributory negligence was to use a test to decide
which of the two parties to be held responsible. Courts have, in the past, applied a rule
called the doctrine of last opportunity to determine who was liable. The doctrine of last

opportunity states that the person who had the last opportunity to avoid the injury, would
be responsible for any damage arising out of that injury.
For instance, you tie your horses to a tree on the highway. This means that the horses are
actually on the highway. A car comes and the driver sees the horses, but fails to avoid them
and runs them down. In this case, both the horse owner and the driver are negligent, but
since the driver had the last opportunity to avoid the accident, he/she shall be liable.
Similarly, instead of horses, suppose there was a truck parked in the middle of the highway
but there was enough room on the side. Despite this room, the car scratched against it. The
driver of the car files a suit for negligence. Then, according to the doctrine of last
opportunity, the defendant (the truck owner) can claim that the plaintiff could have
avoided the accident by driving carefully.
Composite Negligence
This occurs where two parties negligently contribute to the injury of a third party, the
plaintiff. Then, both are responsible to the third party. Please remember that this is
different from contributory negligence where the plaintiff contributes to his own injury. In
the case of composite negligence, it is two parties coming together to negligently injure a
third party. In this case, the plaintiff can take one composite tortfeasor or the other or both,
to court.
Remoteness of Damages
It is quite simple, once the damage is caused by a wrong, there have to be liabilities
(conditional to some exceptions). The question remains how much liability can be fixed,
and what factor determines it. The doctrine of the remoteness of damages is one such
principle.
An event constituting a wrong can constitute of single consequence or may constitute of

consequences of consequences i.e. series of acts/wrongs.
The damage may be proximate or might be remote, or too remote.
To understand the concept lets understand an illustration:
A person is going driving on a road, he hits a girl on the footpath, the girl tumbles on a
bicycle breaks her finger, the bicycle man loses his balance and gets in front of a fuel
tanker , the tanker to save the man on the bicycle steers left but unfortunately hits the

railing to a river bridge and falls into it , the lock of the fuel tank breaks and the oil spills
into the river , the driver with the truck drowns.
In the above case:
 the girl being hit is the direct damage and it is the direct damage caused by the act of A
 the damage caused to the cyclist is proximately caused by the falling of the girl and is
remote to the act of A
 the damage caused to the truck driver and the loss of material(fuel and fuel tank) is
remote to the act of A and proximate to the act of the cyclist
And it is to be noted that the accountability to negligence is made on the assumption that
the person is aware of the fact that rash driving can lead to fatalities (though the expected
and the actual results might not be the same).
Now, the starting point of any rule of the remoteness of damage is the familiar notion that a
line must be drawn somewhere, it would be unacceptably harsh for every tort feasor to be
responsible for all the consequences which he has caused.
Certainly, the question of where to draw the line on recover-ability of consequential losses
cannot be answered by a mathematically precise formula. Judges have used their discretion
from time to time, and in that process, two formulas have been highlighted:
1. The test of reasonable foresight

2. The test of directness
Malicious Prosecution
This tort, unlike others, requires the element of malice, i.e. bad intention. This tort claim
involves two actions: an initial criminal law action, followed by a tort claim.
If a person files a criminal complaint against a person whom he knows to be innocent and
then allows the criminal proceedings to take place or to continue, without informing the
State of the other person’s innocence, the tort of malicious prosecution is said to be
committed. Essentially, this tort prevents people from deliberately harassing others by
abusing the legal process.

The following requirements must be met in order to prove the tort of malicious
prosecution:
(a) There must be prosecution by the tortfeasor
This means that the person alleged to have committed the tort must have instituted
criminal proceedings against the innocent party.
(b) The Prosecution must have been without Reasonable and Probable Cause
This means that the prosecution must have been initiated without any fair reason or
ground. This also implies that the complainant/prosecutor knew of the plaintiff’s
innocence. If the complainant/ prosecutor, who becomes the defendant in the tort
claim for malicious prosecution, can show that he had even the slightest belief that
the plaintiff was guilty, then the tort is not committed.
(c) The plaintiff must show that the defendant prosecuted him with malice, i.e., he
deliberately sought to cause him hardship.
The plaintiff needs to show that the defendant initiated proceedings with an evil
intention. If the defendant knew that the plaintiff was innocent, the court might
conclude that the defendant intended some hardship for the plaintiff.
(d) Acquittal of the plaintiff.
If the court convicts the plaintiff, he cannot, claim malicious prosecution because
even the court thought he was guilty, implying therefore that the prosecution was
justified and not malicious.
(e) The Plaintiff needs to have suffered damage as a result of the malicious prosecution,
since false prosecution usually results in damage to reputation, in some cases to the mind
and body of the person, and almost always financially.

Chapter 1: Introduction To Legal Knowledge: Fast Track Course Du LLB Entrance 2019 (Legal Aptitude)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 1: Introduction To Legal Knowledge: Fast Track Course Du LLB Entrance 2019 (Legal Aptitude)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 1: Introduction To Legal Knowledge: Fast Track Course Du LLB Entrance 2019 (Legal Aptitude)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FAST TRACK COURSE DU LLB ENTRANCE 2019 (LEGAL APTITUDE)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO LEGAL KNOWLEDGE

COMPILED BY MEHAK AGGARWAL POWERED BY: LAWIT

TO START WITH THE CONCEPTS OF LEGAL APTITUDE,

An accident of an individual with another.

Voting rights being violated.

ALL ABOVE EXAMPLES DEPICT- CIVIL LAWS.

COMPILED BY MEHAK AGGARWAL POWERED BY: LAWIT

Criminal wrong can be inferred from the examples below:

 A murder by an individual affects the whole society.

 A rape of an individual also affects the whole society.

COMPILED BY MEHAK AGGARWAL POWERED BY: LAWIT

CIVIL LAW CRIMINAL LAW

Case filed by Private party Government

Type of Compensation (usually financial) for A guilty defendant is subject to

Examples Landlord/tenant disputes, divorce Theft, assault, robbery, trafficking in

COMPILED BY MEHAK AGGARWAL POWERED BY: LAWIT

CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION TO LAW OF TORTS

How to determine that a particular wrong is Tort or not?

To fall under Tort, any wrong has to qualify following conditions:

1. There must be some Act or omission on the part of the plaintiff.

Legal maxim stating 3rd qualification:

UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM- WHERE THERE IS A RIGHT, THERE IS A REMEDY!

Next, to understand the acceptability of Tort (wrongful action) in court we need to

COMPILED BY MEHAK AGGARWAL POWERED BY: LAWIT

Two principles to be remembered in torts, they are as follows:-

1. Damnum sine injuria

Damnum sine injuria means damage without injury.

Case laws for Damnum Sine Injuria-

It is an infringement of an absolute private right without any actual loss or damage.

Leading cases for injuria sine damnum-

COMPILED BY MEHAK AGGARWAL POWERED BY: LAWIT

General defenses under tort:

The General defences are as follows:

1. Volenti non fit injuria, or the defence of ‘Consent’

Example Case Law:

COMPILED BY MEHAK AGGARWAL POWERED BY: LAWIT

1. The plaintiff knew that the risk is there

2. PLAINTIFF, THE WRONGDOER

COMPILED BY MEHAK AGGARWAL POWERED BY: LAWIT

In above illustration, two situations can arise

First, in which plaintiff is the wrongdoer.

Second, in which defendant is the wrongdoer.

COMPILED BY MEHAK AGGARWAL POWERED BY: LAWIT

4.ACT OF GOD- vis Major (Latin)

An operation of natural forces so unexpected to anticipate it. (Pollock)

Two important essentials are needed for this defense:

 There must be working of natural forces

WORKING OF NATURAL FORCES

COMPILED BY MEHAK AGGARWAL POWERED BY: LAWIT

OCCURRENCE MUST BE EXTRAORDINARY

To use this defense three conditions need to be satisfied.

1. It should pose an imminent threat to personal safety or property. For example, A is

COMPILED BY MEHAK AGGARWAL POWERED BY: LAWIT

If it is necessary to prevent damage caused by greater sin, it is not feasible even if it is

COMPILED BY MEHAK AGGARWAL POWERED BY: LAWIT

Different responsibility is a form of secondary debt, which means that human

(A) Master - Servant Relationship

COMPILED BY MEHAK AGGARWAL POWERED BY: LAWIT