1.2.tort Law Notes

Class –B.A.LL.B (HONS.) I SEM.
Subject – Law of Torts
Unit-I Evolution of Law of Torts

1 England.- Forms of action, specific remedies from case to case
2 India - principles of justice equity and good conscience-unmodified
character- advantages and disadvantages
Definition, Nature, Scope and Objects of Tort
1. A wrongful act- violation of duty imposed by law, duty which is
owed to people generally (in rem) - damnum sine injuria and injuria
sine damnum doctrine and applicability.
2. Tort distinguished from crime and breach of contract and trusts.
3. The contract of unliquidated damages
4. Changing scope of law of torts : expanding character of duties owed
to people generally due to complexities of modern society
5. Objects-prescribing standards of human conduct, redressal of wrongs
by payment of compensation, proscribing unlawful conduct by
injunction.
Torts English perspective
English tort law concerns civil wrongs, as distinguished from criminal wrongs, in the law of England and
Wales. Some wrongs are the concern of the state, and so the police can enforce the law on the wrongdoers
in court – in a criminal case. A tort is not enforced by the police, and it is a civil action taken by
one citizen against another, and tried in a court in front of a judge (only rarely, in certain cases
of defamation, with a jury). Tort derives from middle English for "injury", from Anglo-French, from
Medieval Latin tortum, from Latin, neuter of tortus "twisted", from past participle of torquēre.
Following Roman law, the English system has long been based on a closed system ] of nominate torts, such
as trespass, battery and conversion. This is in contrast to continental legal systems, which have since
adopted more open systems of tortious liability. There are various categories of tort, which lead back to the
system of separate causes of action. The tort of negligence is however increasing in importance over other
types of tort, providing a wide scope of protection, especially sinceDonoghue v Stevenson. For liability under
negligence a duty of care must be established owed to a group of persons to which the victim belongs, a
nebulous concept into which many other categories are being pulled.
Torts Indian perspective
Tort law in India is a relatively new common law development supplemented by codifying statutes
including statutes governing damages. While India generally follows the UK approach, there are certain
differences which may indicate judicial activism, hence creating controversy. Tort is breach of some duty
independent of contract which has caused damage to the plaintiff giving rise to civil cause of action and for
which remedy is available. If there is no remedy it cannot be called a tort because the essence of tort is to
give remedy to the person who has suffered injury.
https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs 2
Class –B.A.LL.B (HONS.) I SEM. Subject – Law of Torts
Tort law in India, like her common law counterparts, stems from both statute and common law.
Statutes
Similar to other common law countries, aspects of tort law have been codified. Furthermore, the Indian
Penal Code criminalises certain areas of tort law.
Common law
As tort law is a relatively young area of law in India, apart from referring to local judicial precedents, courts
have readily referred to case law from other common law jurisdictions, such as UK, Australia, and Canada.
Relevant local customs and practices
However, attention is given to local socio-cultural practices and conditions in applying foreign legal
principles. The legislature have also created statutes to provide for certain social conditions; for example,
due to the nature of Indian families, a statute was passed to simplify determination of damages in the event
of family members
Meaning of Tort
Tort is a Civil / Legal Wrong. Tort Law is one of the important branches of Civil Law.
The word Tort is derived from a Latin word 'Tortus' which means 'twisted' or 'cooked act'. In English it
means, 'wrong'. The Expression 'Tort' is of French Origin.
The term 'Tort' means a wrongful act committed by a person, causing injury or damage to another, thereby
the injured institutes (files) an action in Civil Court for a remedy viz., unliquidated damages or injunction or
restitution of property or other available relief. Unliquidated damages mean the amount of damages to be
fixed or determined by the Court. The 'Law of Torts' owes its origin to the Common Law of England. It is
well developed in the UK, USA and other advanced Countries. In India, Law of Torts is non codified, like
other branches of law eg: Indian Contract Act, 1872 and Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is still in the process of
development. A tort can take place either by commission of an act or by omission of an act.
Wrong
 Public wrong - Crime is a Public Wrong. These are acts that are tried in Criminal Courts and
are punishable under the Penal Law (such as the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in India)
 Private wrong - Tort is a Private Wrong. These are acts against an individual person or a
person within a community and are tried in Civil Courts.
Definition
According to Prof. Winfield, Tortious Liability arises from breach of a duty primarily fixed by law; this duty
is towards persons generally and its breach is redressable by an action for unliquidated damages.
Sir John Salmond defined Tort as a civil wrong for which the remedy is common law action for unliquidated
damages and which is not exclusively the breach of contract or the breach of trust or other merely
equitable obligation.
 The person who commits or is guilty of a tort is called a "tortfeasor".

 The person who suffered injury or damage by a tortfeasor is called injured or aggrieved.
 Tort is a common law term and its equivalent in Civil Law is "Delict".
 In general, the victim of a tortious act is the plaintiff in a tort case.
 As a general rule, all persons have the capacity to sue and be sued in a tort.
 Liquidated damages (also referred to as liquidated and ascertained damages) are damages whose
amount the parties designate during the formation of a contract for the injured party to collect as
compensation upon a specific breach (e.g., late performance).
 Unliquidated damages (uncountable) (law) An amount owed to a plaintiff in a lawsuit by the

defendant that cannot be determined by operation of law, such as the value of pain and suffering in
a tort case.
 Malice- A condition of mind which prompts a person to do a wrongful act wilfully, that is, on
purpose, to the injury of another, or to do intentionally a wrongful act toward another without
justification or excuse.
 In its legal sense it means a wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse.
 Malice is a wish to injure a party, rather than to vindicate the law. Malice of two types:
 i) Malice in fact
 ii) Malice in law
 Malice in fact – Means an actual malicious intention on the part of the person who has done the
wrongful act. It is also called express or actual malice.
 Malice in law – It is not necessarily personal hate or ill will, but it is that state of mind which is
reckless of law and of the legal rights of the citizen.
 Motive – Motive is that which incites or stimulates a person to do an act. It is the moving power
which impels to action for a definite result.
 Motive is mainspring of human action. It is cause or reason. It is something which prompts a man to
form an intention.
 Intention – A settled direction of the mind towards the doing of a certain act; that upon which the
mind is set or which it wishes to express or achieve; the willingness to bring about something
planned or foreseen.
 Injury- In legal parlance, ‘injury’ means any wrong or damage done to another, either in his person,
rights, reputation or property.
 Meaning under Penal Code, 1860 (section 44) – the word injury denotes any harm whatever
illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property.
 Hurt – Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.
 Malfeasance – it is a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do, or any wrongful conduct
which affects, interrupts, or interferes with performance of official duty, or an act for which there is
no authority or warrant of law or which a person ought not to do at all, or has contracted not, to do.
 The word ‘malfeasance’ would apply to a case where an act prohibited by law is done by a
person. (Khairul Bahsar v. Thana Lal AIR 1957)
 Misfeasance – Unlawful use of power; wrongful performance of a normally legal act; injurious
exercise of lawful authority; official misconduct; breach of law.
 The word ‘misfeasance’ would apply to a case where a lawful act is done in an improper manner.
 Nonfeasance - Non performance of some act which ought to be performed, omission to perform a
required duty at all, or total neglect of duty.
 Nonfeasance would apply to a case where a person omits to do some act prescribed by law.
 Distinction between ‘Misfeasance’, ‘nonfeasance’ and ‘malfeasance’ – Misfeasance is the improper

doing of an act which a person may wilfully do. Nonfeasance means the omission of an act which a
person ought to do. Malfeasance is the doing of an act which a person ought not to do at all.
Tort Law provides an avenue for an injured person of a remedy. It does not provide a guarantee of
recovery.
Types of Torts
Intentional Strict
Torts Negligence Liability
Against the
Against the Person: Property
assault, Battery,
Infliction of mental
distress, False
imprisonment
Against the Property
Intentional Torts
An intentional tort is when an individual or entity purposely engages in conduct that causes injury or
damage to another. For instance, striking someone in a fight would be consider an intentional act that
would fall under the tort of battery; whereas accidentally hitting another person would not qualify as
“intentional” because there was no intent to strike the individual (…however, this act may be considered
negligent if the person hit was injured).
Although it may seem like an intentional tort can be categorized as a criminal case, there are important
differences between the two. A crime can be defined as a wrongful act that injures or interferes with the
interests of society. In comparison, intentional torts are wrongful acts that injure or interfere with
an individual’s well-being or property. While criminal charges are brought by the government and can
result in a fine or jail sentence, tort charges are filed by a plaintiff seeking monetary compensation for
damages that the defendant must pay if they lose. Sometimes a wrongful act may be both a criminal and
tort case.
Negligence
There is a specific code of conduct which every person is expected to follow and a legal duty of the public to
act a certain way in order to reduce the risk of harm to others. Failure to adhere to these standards is
known as negligence. Negligence is by far the most prevalent type of tort.
Unlike intentional torts, negligence cases do not involve deliberate actions, but instead are when an
individual or entity is careless and fails to provide a duty owed to another person. The most common
examples of negligence torts are cases of slip and fall, which occur when a property owner fails to act as a
reasonable person would, thus resulting in harm to the visitor or customer.
Strict Liability
Last are torts involving strict liability. Strict, or “absolute,” liability applies to cases where responsibility for
an injury can be imposed on the wrongdoer without proof of negligence or direct fault. What matters is that
an action occurred and resulted in the eventual injury of another person.
Defective product cases are prime examples of when liability is maintained despite intent. In lawsuits such
as these, the injured consumer only has to establish that their injuries were directly caused by the product
in question in order to have the law on their side. The fact that the company did not “intend” for the
consumer to be injured is not a factor.
Characteristics
1. Tort, is a private wrong, which infringes the legal right of an individual or specific group of
individuals.
2. The person, who commits tort is called "tort-feasor" or "Wrong doer"
3. The place of trial is Civil Court.
4. Tort litigation is compoundable i.e. the plaintiff can withdraw the suit filed by him.
5. Tort is a species of civil wrong.
6. Tort is other than a breach of contract
7. The remedy in tort is unliquidated damages or other equitable relief to the injured.
Essential elements to prove a Tort

 Existence of legal duty from defendant to plaintiff
 Breach of duty
 Damage as proximate result.
Distinction between Tort and crime-

Tort Crime
i) Less serious wrongs are considered as i) More serious wrongs have been considered
private wrongs and have been labelled as civil to be public wrongs and are known as crimes.
wrong.
ii) The suit is filed by the injured person ii) The case is brought by the state.
himself.
iii) Compromise is always possible. iii) Except in certain cases, compromise is not
possible.
iv) the wrongdoers pays compensation to the iv) The wrongdoer is punished.
injured party.
V) A person who commits Tort is a 'tortfeasor' V) A person who commits Crime is a 'Criminal'
or 'Offender'
vi) The remedy of tort is unliquidated damages vi) The remedy is to punish the offender
or other equitable relief to the injured
vii) Tort litigation is compoundable Criminal cases are not compoundable except
in case of exceptions as per Section 320 Cr.PC
of IPC
Distinction between Tort and breach of contract-

Breach of contract Tort
i) It results from breach of a duty undertaken i) It occurs from the breach of such duties
by the parties themselves. which are not undertaken by the parties but
which are imposed by law.
ii) In contract, each party owes duty to the ii) Duties imposed by law of torts are not
other. towards any specific individual but towards
the world at large.
iii) Damage of contract is liquidated. iii) Damage of tort is unliquidated.
iv) It provides limited remedy iv) It provides unlimited remedy.
Distinction between Tort and Breach of trust-

Tort Breach of Trust
i) Damage of tort is unliquidated. i) Damage of breach of trust is liquidated.
ii) Law of tort was part of common law. ii) Law of trust was part of Court of Chancery.
iii) Tort is partly related to the law of property. iii) Trust is a branch of law of property.
Remedies
Remedies are of two types-
1. judicial and
2. Extra-judicial.
1. Judicial remedy is of three types:
(i) Damages,
(ii) Injunction and
(iii) Restitution of property
(i) Types of damages -

 a) Exemplary or Vindictive damages – are damages on an increased scale, awarded to the
plaintiff over and above what will barely compensate him for his property loss, where the wrong
done to him was aggravated by circumstances of violence, oppression, malice etc.
 b) Ordinary or Real damages – are compensation for general damage. General damages are
those which the law implies in every breach of contract and in every violation of a legal right.
 c) Nominal damages – They are awarded for the vindication of a right where no real loss or
injury can be proved.
 d) Contemptuous damages -
(ii) Injunction- A judicial process operating in personam, and requiring a person to whom it
is directed to do or refrain from doing a particular thing. Law as to the injunction is
contained in the Specific Relief Act 1963 and the CPC 1908.
Types of injunction –
 (i) Mandatory – When, to prevent the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to compel the
performance of certain acts, the Court may in its discretion grant an injunction to prevent the
breach (s. 55 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877).
 (ii) Permanent or perpetual – By perpetual injunction a defendant is perpetually enjoined from
the assertion of a right, or from the commission of an act, which would be contrary to the rights of
the plaintiff (s. 53, the Specific Relief Act, 1877).
 (iii) Temporary – Temporary injunction is such as is to continue until a specified time, or until the
further order of the Court. It is regulated by the CPC (s. 53, The Specific Relief Act, 1877; CPC Order
XXXIX Rule 1.
 (iv) Ad-interim -
(ii) Restitution of property – Restitution means restoration of anything to its rightful

owner.
2. Extra-judicial remedies are-
i) Self defence – The use of force to protect oneself, one’s family, or one’s property from a real or
threatened attack.
ii) Expulsion of trespassers – Forcibly evicting the trespasser.
iii) Reception of chattels – Chattel means movable or transferable property; personal property.
iv) Re-entry of land –
v) Abatement of nuisance – Abatement is the act of eliminating or nullifying; the act of lessening or
moderating.
vi) Distress damage feasant – the right to seize animals or inanimate chattels that are damaging or
encumbering land and to keep them as security until the owner pays compensation.
Essential
elements of
Torts
Wrongful Duty
act or imposed by Injury
omission law
Injuria sine Damanum

damanum sine injuria
1. Wrongful act or omission - There must be some act or omission of a duty on the part of the defendant.
For a tort to happen, the person must have first either done something that he was not expected to do or
omitted to do something that he was supposed to do.
Municipal Corp of Delhi vs Subhagvanti AIR 1966 - A clock tower was not in good repairs. It fell and
killed several people. MCD was held liable for its omission.
2. Duty imposed by law - The act or omission of an action must be required by law or the duty must be
imposed by law. This means that if an act that is prohibited by law causes harm, it is liable under tort.
Similarly, if the omission of an act that is required by law causes harm, then it is liable under tort. For
example, law requires that the driver of a vehicle must drive carefully and if driving without care, a
pedestrian is hit, the omission of the act of driving carefully is liable under tort. However, if the worshipers
stop going to a temple and thereby because the priest to lose money, this action is not liable under tort
because going to temple is not an act that is required by law. Such duties that are required by law are
usually towards all the people in general.
Donaghue vs Stevenson 1932 - Held that the manufacturer of a drink has a legal duty towards the
consumers to ensure that noxious substances are not included in the drink.
3. Injury - The act or the omission must result in legal damage or injury i.e. violation of a legal right vested
in the plaintiff. This means that the act or omission must cause a damage that is recognized by law as
wrongful.
Injuria Sine Damno

A person has a legal right to enjoy his property and if someone throws trash in it, this is a violation of his
legal right and is liable under tort. However, it is possible that a legal right is violated without causing any
physical or real damage.
Ashby vs White 1703 - The defendant wrongfully prevented the plaintiff from voting. Even though there
was no damage, the defendant was held liable.
Bhim Singh vs State of J K AIR 1986 - Plaintiff was an MLA and was wrongfully arrested while going to
assembly session. He was not produced before a magistrate within the requisite period. It was held that
this was the violation of his fundamental rights. Even though he was release later, he was awarded
50,000RS as exemplary damages by SC.
Damnum Sine Injuria –

On the other hand, it is possible that a person suffers a huge loss or damage but none of his legal rights are
violated. This is called Damnum sine Injuria. In such cases, there is no tortious act.
Glaucester Grammar School's case 1410 - Defendant opened a rival grammar school in front of an
existing one thereby causing the fees of the existing one to be reduced from 40pence to 12 pence. He was
not held liable as he did not violate any legal right of the plaintiff.
Ushaben vs BhagyaLaxmi Chitra Mandir AIR 1978 - Plaintiff sought a permanent injunction against the
cinema house to restrain them from showing the movie Jai Santoshi Maa. It was contended that the movie
depicts the goddesses Laxmi, Saraswati, and Parvati in bad light, which is offensive to the plaintiff. It was
held that hurt to religious sentiments is not recognized as a legal wrong. Since there was no violation of a
legal right, an injunction was not granted.
Chesmore vs Richards 1879 - Plaintiff had been drawing water from underground for past 60 yrs. The
defendant sunk a bore well on his land and drew huge quantity of water which diminished the water supply
of the plaintiff. It was held that the defendant was not liable because he was only exercising his right and
did not violate any right of the plaintiff.
Unit-II Justification in Tort

1. Volenti non fit injuria
2. Necessity, private and public
3. Plaintiffs default
4. Act of God
5. Inevitable accident
6. Private defense
7. Statutory authority
8. Judicial and quasi-judicial acts
9. Parental and quasi-parental authority
10. Extinguishment of liability in certain situations
Torts that are not actionable / General Defences for Torts

Even when a plaintiff provides proof for the existence of all the essential elements of a tort, it is possible in
some cases for the defendant to take certain defences which can remove his liability, These defences are
nothing but specific situations or circumstances in which a defendant is given a waiver for his tortious
action. These are as follows –
1. Volenti Non fit Injuria
When a person consents for infliction of harm upon himself, he has no remedy for that in Tort. That means,
if a person has consented to do something or has given permission to another to do certain thing, and if he
is injured because of that, he cannot claim damages. For example, A purchases tickets for a Car race and
while watching the race, an collision of cars happens and the person is injured. Here, by agreeing to watch
the race, which is a risky sport, it is assumed that he voluntarily took on the risk of being hurt in an
accident. Thus, he cannot claim compensation for the injury.
Such consent may be implied or express. For example, a person practicing the sport of Fencing with
another, impliedly consents to the injury that might happen while playing.
In Woolridge vs Sumner 1963, the plaintiff a photographer was taking photographs at a horse show,
during which one horse rounded the bend too fast. As the horse galloped furiously, the plaintiff was
frightened and he fell in the course. He was seriously injured. It was held that the defendants had taken
proper care in closing the course and the plaintiff, by being in the show, agreed to take the risk of such an
accident. The defendants were not held liable.
However, the action causing harm must not go beyond the limit of what has been consented. For example,
in a sport of fencing, a person consents to an injruy that happens while playing by the rules. If he is injured
due to an action that violates the rules, he can claim compensation because he never consented to an injury
while playing without rules.
In Laxmi Rajan vs Malar Hospital 1998, a woman consented for a surgery to remove a lump from her
breast. But the hospital removed her uterus as well without any genuine reason. It was held that removing
of her uterus exceed beyond what she had consented for.
Also, the consent must be free. It must not be because of any compulsion. Thus, if a servant was compelled
by the master to do a certain task despite his protests, and if he is injured while doing it, the master cannot
take the defence of volenti non fit injuria because the consent was not free
Exceptions - In the following conditions, this defence cannot be taken even if the plaintiff has consented -
Rescue Conditions - When the plaintiff suffers injury while saving someone. For example, A's horse is out
of control and is galloping towards a busy street. B realizes that if the horse reaches the street it will hurt
many people and so he bravely goes and control's the horse. He is injured in doing so and sue's A. Here A
cannot take the defence that B did that act upon his own consent. It is considered as a just action in public
interest and the society should reward it instead of preventing him from getting compensation.
Unfair Contract Terms - Where the terms of a contract are unfair, the defendant cannot take this defence.
For example, even if a laundry, by contract, absolves itself of all liability for damage to clothes, a person can
claim compensation because the contract is unfair to the consumers.
2. Plaintiff the wrongdoer

A person cannot take advantage of his own wrong. This principle has been in use since a long time as it is
just and equitable. For example, a person trespassing one another's property is injured due to darkness. He
cannot claim compensation because he was injured due to an action which was wrong on his part.
However, this defence exists only if the injury happens because of a wrongful act of the plaintiff. It does not
exist if the injury happens because of a wrongful act of the defendant even if the plaintiff was doing a
wrongful but unrelated act. For example, in Bird vs Holbrook 1828, the plaintiff was trespassing on the
defendant's property and he was hurt due to a spring gun. The defendant had put spring guns without any
notice and was thus held liable.
3. Inevitable Accident
Accident means an unexpected occurrence of something that could not have been predicted or prevented.
In such a case, the defendants will not be liable if they had no intention to cause it and if the plaintiff is
injured because of it. For example, in Stanley vs Powell 1891, the plaintiff and the defendant were
members of a shooting party. The defendant shot a bird but the bullet ricocheted off a tree and hit the
plaintiff. The defendant was not held liable because it was an accident and the defendant did not intent it
and could neither have prevented it.
However, the defence of Inevitable Accident is not a license to negligence. For example, A has hired B's car.
While driving, one of the tires bursts and causes accident injuring A. Here, if the tires were worn out and
were in bad condition, it would be negligence of B and he would be held liable for A's injuries.
4. Act of God
An act of God in a legal sense is an extraordinary occurrence of circumstance which could not have been
predicted or prevented and happens because of natural causes. Nobody can predict, prevent, or protect
from a natural disaster such an earthquake or flood. Thus, it is unreasonable to expect a person to be liable
for damages caused by such acts of God.
There are two essential conditions for this defence –
 the event must be due to a natural cause and
 it must be extraordinary or something that could not have been anticipated or expected.
For example, heavy rains in the monsoon are expected and if a wall falls and injures someone, it cannot be
termed an act of god because protection for such expected conditions should have been taken. But if a
building falls due to a massive earthquake and injures and kills people, this defence can be used.
In Ramalinga Nadar vs Narayan Reddiar AIR 1971, it was held that criminal activities of an unruly mob
are not an act of God.
5. Private Defence
As per section 96 of IPC, nothing is an offence that is done in exercise of the right of private defence. Thus,
law permits the use of reasonable and necessary force in preventing harm to human body or property and
injuries caused by the use of such force are not actionable. However, the force must be reasonable and not
excessive. In Bird vs Hollbrook 1892, the defendant used spring guns in his property without notice. It
was held that he used excessive force and so was liable for plaintiff's injury even though the plaintiff was
trespassing on his property.
6. Mistake
Generally, mistake is not a valid defence against an action of tort. Thus, hurting a person under the
mistaken belief that he is trespassing on your property, will not be defensible. However, in certain cases, it
could be a valid defence. For example, in the case of malicious prosecution, it is necessary to prove that the
defendant acted maliciously and without a reasonable cause. If the prosecution was done only by mistake, it
is not actionable.
Further, honest belief in the truth of a statement is a defence against an action for deceit.
7. Necessity
If the act causing damage is done to prevent a greater harm, it is excusable. For example, a Ship ran over a
small boat hurting 2 people in order to prevent collision with another ship which would have hurt
hundreds of people is excusable. Thus, in Leigh vs Gladstone 1909, force feeding of a hunger striking
prisoner to save her was held to be a good defence to an action for battery.
8. Statutory Authority
An act that is approved by the legislature or is done upon the direction of the legislature is excused from
tortious liability even though in normal circumstances, it would have been a tort. When an act is done
under the authority of an Act, it is a complete defence and the injured party has no remedy except that is
prescribed by the statute.
In Vaughan vs Taff Valde Rail Co 1860, sparks from an engine caused fire in appellant's woods that
existed in his land adjoining the railway track. It was held that since the company was authorized to run the
railway and since the company had taken proper care in running the railway, it was not liable for the
damage.
9. Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Acts No action lies for acts done, or words spoken, by a judge in exercise of
his judicial office, although they may be malicious. It is founded on the principle of public benefit that
Judges should be at liberty to exercise their function independently and without fear of consequences.
Judicial Officers ’ Protection Act, 1850 grants protection to a judicial officer for any act done or ordered to
be done by him in the discharge of his judicial duty. He is protected even though he exceeds his jurisdiction
provided that at that time he honestly believed that he had jurisdiction to do or order the act complained of.
Section 1 of the Act reads as follows: “ 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 y 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 or orders of 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. ”
Limits of such protection:-
1. No such protection is granted if a magistrate is acting mala fide and outside his jurisdiction. Sailajanand
Pandey v Suresh Chandra Gupta , AIR 1969 Pat. 194 The magistrate acting mala fide, illegally and
outside his jurisdiction, ordered the arrest of the plaintiff. The Patna High Court held that he was not
entitled to the protection given by the Judicial Officer ’ s Protection Act, 1850 and was, therefore, liable for
the wrong of false imprisonment.
2. The protection of judicial privilege applies only to judicial proceedings as contrasted with administrative
or ministerial proceedings and where, a judge acts both judicially and ministerial or administratively, the
protection is not afforded to the act done in the later capacity.
State of U.P. v. Tulsi Ram, AIR 1971 All. 162 Five persons were prosecuted for certain offences. One of
them was acquitted by the Sessions Court and another by the High Court. The High Court upheld the
conviction of only three of the five persons and authorised the issue of warrants against these three
convicted persons. The judicial magistrate acting negligently signed an order for the arrest of all the five
persons. As a result of this order, the plaintiffs, even though they had been acquitted by the High Court,
were arrested by the police.
They filed a suit claiming compensation of Rs. 2,000 from the judicial officer and the State of U.P. stating
that their arrest before their relations and friends on the day of Holi festival had caused much humiliation,
disgrace, physical discomfort and mental suffering to them.
The lower appellate court held that the judicial officer was protected by the Judicial Officer ’ s Protection
Act, 1850 but the State of U.P. was vicariously liable and passed a decree of Rs. 500 against the state of U.P.
The Allahabad High Court, on an appeal made by the State of U.P. held that the State was not liable because
the act done by its servant was in the discharge of his duties imposed by law. Further, it held that the
judicial officer was liable for the wrongful arrest of the plaintiff-respondents as the judicial officer was not
exercising any judicial function but only an executive function while issuing warrants and therefore, the
protection under the Judicial Officers ’ Protection Act, 1850 could not be available in this case.
10. Parental or Quasi Parental Authority Parents and persons in loco parentis have a right to administer
punishment on a child for the purpose of correction, chastisement of training. However one must
remember that such an authority warrants the use of reasonable and moderate punishment only and
therefore, if there is an excessive use of force, the defendant may be liable for assault, battery or false
imprisonment, as the case may be.
In England, as per Section 1(7), Children and Young Persons Act, 1933 , a parent, teacher, or other person
having lawful control or charge of a child or young person is allowed to administer punishment on him.
In Fitzgerald v. Northcote , (1865) 4 F & F 656, Cockburn C.J . observed: The authority of a schoolmaster
is while it exists, the same as that of parent. A parent, when he places his child with a schoolmaster,
delegates to him all his authority, so far as it is necessary for the welfare of the child ”
The authority of a teacher to correct his students is: not limited only to the wrongs which the student may
commit upon the school premises but may also extend to the wrongs done by him outside the school
because there is not much opportunity for boy to exhibit his moral conduct while in school under the eye of
the master the opportunity is while he is at play or outside the school.
R. v. Newport (Salop) Justices , (1929) 2 K.B. 416 It has been held that if the school rules prohibited
smoking, both in the school and in the public, the school master was justified in caning a student whom he
had found smoking cigarette in a public street.
Reasonable professional behaviour, rather than perfection, is the norm Eisel v. Board of Education ,
(1991) The Maryland High Court ruled that school counsellors were negligent in not revealing their
knowledge of a student ’ s threatened suicide to the child’s parents. The counsellors’ negligence was not for
failure to physically prevent the student’s suicide, but rather for not communicating information regarding
the child’s intent.
Unit-III Doctrine of sovereign immunity and its relevance

in India
1. Vicarious Liability
2. Torts against persons and personal relations
3. Defamation
4. Parental relations, master and servant relation
5. Malicious prosecution, wrongful confinement
6. Wrongs affecting property
7. Trespass to land
8. Constitutional torts and Public liability for victim’s
compensation.
Vicarious Liability
Respondeat superior, which literally means “let the master answer,” is a doctrine that holds one party liable
for another’s actions based on their relationship. While commonly applied to hold employers responsible
for certain types of their employees’ actions, this doctrine can also be relevant in principal/agent
relationships. Simple negligence claims (e.g., negligent hiring, negligent entrustment of an automobile) may
also apply in these relationships.
1. Employee/employer relationships: An employer is vicariously liable for the acts of an employee

as long as the employee’s acts are in the scope of employment. Thus, when an employee acts to further the
employer’s business, the employer will be vicariously liable (even for intentional torts). However, if the
employee commits an intentional tort for purely personal reasons unrelated to the employment, most
jurisdictions will not hold an employer vicariously liable.
Employers are vicariously liable, under the respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by
their employees in the course of employment (sometimes referred to as 'scope of employment'). For an act
to be considered within the course of employment, it must either be authorized or be so connected with an
authorized act that it can be considered a mode, though an improper mode, of performing it.
Courts sometimes distinguish between an employee's "detour" vs. "frolic". For instance, an employer will
be held liable if it is shown that the employee had gone on a mere detour in carrying out their duties,
whereas an employee acting in his or her own right rather than on the employer's business is undertaking a
"frolic" and will not subject the employer to liability. Employer will be held liable if an employer does an
authorized act in an unauthorized way
Generally, an employer will not be held liable for assault or battery committed by employees, unless the use
of force was part of their employment (such as a police officer), or they were in a field likely to create
friction with persons they encountered (such as car re-possessors). However, the employer of
an independent contractor is not held vicariously liable for the tortious acts of the contractor, unless the
contractor injures someone to whom the employer owes a non-delegable duty of care, as when the
employer is a school authority and the injured party a pupil.
Employers are also liable under the common law principle represented in the Latin phrase, "qui facit per
alium facit per se" (one who acts through another acts in one's own interests). That is a parallel concept to
vicarious liability and strict liability, in which one person is held liable in criminal law or tort for the acts or
omissions of another.
2. Independent contractor/employer relationships: Generally, employers are not vicariously liable

for acts committed by independent contractors. However, when inherently dangerous activities or non-
delegable duties (e.g.,duty of railroad to maintain safe crossings, duty of storekeeper to make the premises
reasonably safe for customers) are involved, an employer can be held vicariously liable.
3. Automobile driver/owner relationships: In many jurisdictions, the owner is only vicariously

liable if the driver is on an errand for the owner. However, in some jurisdictions, an owner is vicariously
liable for drivers that are members of the owner’s household as long as the car is intended for family use. In
other jurisdictions, as long as the driver has the owner’s permission to operate the vehicle, the owner is
vicariously liable.
Principals' liability
The owner of an automobile can be held vicariously liable for negligence committed by a person to whom
the car has been loaned, as if the owner was a principal and the driver his or her agent, if the driver is using
the car primarily for the purpose of performing a task for the owner. Courts have been reluctant to extend
this liability to the owners of other kinds of chattel. For example, the owner of a plane will not be
vicariously liable for the actions of a pilot to whom he or she has lent it to perform the owner's purpose. In
the United States, vicarious liability for automobiles has since been outlawed with respect to car leasing
and rental in all 50 states.
One example is in the case of a bank, finance company or other lien holder performing a repossession of an
automobile from the registered owner for non-payment, the lien holder has a non-delegatable duty not to
cause a breach of the peace in performing the repossession, or it will be liable for damages even if the
repossession is performed by an agent. This requirement means that whether repossession is performed by
the lien holder or by an agent, the repossessor must not cause a breach of the peace or the lien holder will
be held responsible.
This requirement not to breach the peace is held upon the lien holder even if the breach is caused by, say,
the debtor objecting to the repossession or resists the repossession. In the court case of MBank El Paso v.
Sanchez, 836 S.W.2d 151, where a hired repossessor towed away a car even after the registered owner
locked herself in it, the court decided that this was an unlawful breach of the peace and declared the
repossession invalid. The debtor was also awarded $1,200,000 in damages from the bank.
4. Parental liability
In the United States, the question of parental responsibility generally and the issue of parental vicarious
liability for the torts of their children is evolving. What is clear is that parents can be held liable for their
own negligent acts, such as failure to supervise a child, or failure to keep a dangerous instrument such as
a handgun outside the reach of their children.
5. The liability of corporations in tort

In English law, a corporation can only act through its employees and agents so it is necessary to decide in
which circumstances the law of agency or vicarious liability will apply to hold the corporation liable in tort
for the frauds of its directors or senior officers.
If liability for the particular tort requires a state of mind, then to be liable, the director or senior officer
must have that state of mind and it must be attributed to the company. In Meridian Global Funds
Management Asia Limited v. Securities Commission [1995] 2 AC 500, two employees of the company,
acting within the scope of their authority but unknown to the directors, used company funds to acquire
some shares. The question was whether the company knew, or ought to have known that it had acquired
those shares.
The Privy Council held that it did. Whether by virtue of their actual or ostensible authority as agents acting
within their authority (see Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co. [1912] AC 716) or as employees acting in the course
of their employment (see Armagas Limited v Mundogas S.A. [1986] 1 AC 717), their acts and omissions
and their knowledge could be attributed to the company, and this could give rise to liability as joint
tortfeasors where the directors have assumed responsibility on their own behalf and not just on behalf of
the company.
So if a director or officer is expressly authorized to make representations of a particular class on behalf of
the company, and fraudulently makes a representation of that class to a Third Party causing loss, the
company will be liable even though the particular representation was an improper way of doing what he
was authorized to do. The extent of authority is a question of fact and is significantly more than the fact of
an employment which gave the employee the opportunity to carry out the fraud.
In Panorama Developments (Guildford) Limited v Fidelis Furnishing Fabrics Limited [1971] 2 QB 711,
a company secretary fraudulently hired cars for his own use without the knowledge of the managing
director. A company secretary routinely enters into contracts in the company's name and has
administrative responsibilities that would give apparent authority to hire cars. Hence, the company was
liable.
Employees' Continued Liability and Indemnity
A common misconception involves the liability of the employee for tortious acts committed within the
scope and authority of their employment. Although the employer is liable under respondeat superior for
the employee's conduct, the employee, too, remains jointly liable for the harm caused. As the American Law
Institute's Restatement of the Law, Third, Agency § 7.01 states,
An agent is subject to liability to a third party harmed by the agent’s tortious conduct. Unless an applicable
statute provides otherwise, an actor remains subject to liability although the actor acts as an agent or an
employee, with actual or apparent authority, or within the scope of employment.
6. State Liability :
Under the English Common Law the maxim was "The King can do no wrong" and therefore, the King was
not liable for the wrongs of its servants. But, in England the position of old Common law maxim has been
changed by the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947. Earlier, the King could not be sued in tort either for wrong
actually authorised by it or committed by its servants, in the course of their employment. With the
increasing functions of State, the Crown Proceedings Act had been passed, now the Crown is liable for a tort
committed by its servants just like a private individual. Similarly, in America, the Federal Torts Claims Act,
1946 provides the principles, which substantially decides the question of liability of State.
In ancient India, under the Hindu jurisprudence, it was an undisputed principle that no one is exempted
from the operation of law. This liability to equal punishment extended even to the king, relative of the king,
a judge or an ordinary citizen. The rule of law was considered supreme and binding on everyone alike. The
important functions of the king were concerned with protection of people, punishment of crimes and
maintenance of dharma or social order.
In the medieval Indian history the personal liability of officers for their wrongs was more vogues with
evidences showing equality between the ruler and the ruled subject. Only when the king considered it
proper to undertake the burden of public officer, it was then the state treasury used to pay the
compensation. Dharma was considered the administrative law binding the king as well as the subjects. Both
in Hindu law and Muslim law, the rulers themselves administered justice as far as possible and the rest was
done by the exceptionally learned and honest judges. The most significant recent trend has been an
assertion on the part of the court that it has a power to grant compensation. The principle of personal
liability of public servants for wrongs done to citizens is already a part of Indian law based on English case
laws.
Presently State liability in India is defined by the Article 300(1) of the Constitution that originated from
Section 176 of the Government of India Act, 1935. This could be traced back from the Section 32 of the
Government of India Act, 1915, the genesis of which can be found in Section 65 of the Government of India
Act, 1858. It will thus be seen that by the chain of enactment beginning with the Act of 1858, the
Government of India and Government of each State are in line of succession of the East India Company. In
other words, the liability of the Government is the same as that of the East India Company before, 1858.
7. Sovereign Functions:
Sovereign functions are those actions of the state for which it is not answerable in any court of law. For
instance, acts such as defence of the country, raising and maintaining armed forces, making peace or war,
foreign affairs, acquiring and retaining territory, are functions which are indicative of external sovereignty
and are political in nature. Therefore, they are not amenable to jurisdiction of ordinary civil court. The State
is immune from being sued, as the jurisdiction of the courts in such matters is impliedly barred.
The distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions was considered at some length in N.
Nagendra Rao v. State of AP. All the earlier Indian decisions on the subject were referred to. The court
enunciated the following legal principles, in its judgment:
In the modern sense, the distinction between sovereign or non-sovereign power thus does not exist. It all
depends on the nature of the power and manner of its exercise. Legislative supremacy under
the Constitution arises out of constitutional provisions. The legislature is free to legislate on topics and
subjects carved out for it. Similarly, the executive is free to implement and administer the law. A law made
by a legislature may be bad or may be ultra vires, but, since it is an exercise of legislative power, a person
affected by it may challenge its validity but he cannot approach a court of law for negligence in making the
law. Nor can the Government, in exercise of its executive action, be sued for its decision on political or
policy matters. It is in public interest that for acts performed by the State, either in its legislative or
executive capacity, it should not be answerable in torts. That would be illogical and impractical. It would be
in conflict with even modern notions of sovereignty.
Pre-Constitution Judicial Decisions:

1. Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company v Secretary :
A consideration of the pre-Constitution cases of the Government’s liability in tort begins with the judgment
of the Supreme Court of Calcutta in the case. P. & O. Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State.
The principle of this case holds that if any act was done in the exercise of sovereign functions, the East India
Company or the State would not be liable. It drew quite a clear distinction between the sovereign and non-
sovereign functions of the state.
As the facts of the case go, a servant of the plaintiff-company was proceeding on a highway in Calcutta,
driving a carriage which was drawn by a pair of horses belonging to the plaintiff. He met with an accident,
caused by negligence of the servants of the Government. For the loss caused by the accident, the plaintiff
claimed damages against the Secretary of State for India.
The Supreme Court observed that the doctrine that the ‘King can done wrong’, was applicable to the East
India Company. The company would have been liable in such cases and the Secretary of State was
thereafter also liable. This arose out of the section 65, Government of India Act, 1858, which equated the
liability of the Secretary of State for India with that of the East India Company. Distinguishing between
sovereign and non-sovereign functions it was held that if a tort were committed by a public servant in the
discharge of sovereign functions, no action would lie against the Government – e.g. if the tort was
committed while carrying on hostilities or seizing enemy property as prize.
This doctrine of immunity, for acts done in the exercise of sovereign functions, was applied by the
Calcutta High Court in Nobin Chander Dey v. Secretary of State. The plaintiff in this case contended that the
Government had made a contract with him for the issue of a licence for the sale of ganja and had committed
breach of the contract. The High Court held that upon the evidence, no breach of contract had been proved.
Secondly even if there was a contract, the act had been done in exercise of sovereign power and was thus
not actionable.
Secretary of State v. Hari Bhanji,In this case, the Madras High Court held that State immunity was
confined to acts of State. In the P & O Case, the ruling did not go beyond acts of State, while giving
illustrations of situations where the immunity was available.
It was defined that Acts of State, are acts done in the exercise of sovereign power, where the act complained
of is professedly done under the sanction of municipal law, and in exercise of powers conferred by law. The
mere fact that it is done by the sovereign powers and is not an act which could possibly be done by a
private individual does not oust the jurisdiction of the civil court.
The Madras judgment in Hari Bhanji holds that the Government may not be liable for acts connected with
public safety, even though they are not acts of State. This view was re-iterated in Ross v. Secretary of State.
The Allahabad High Court took a similar view in Kishanchand v. Secretary of State.
However, in Secretary of Secretary of State v. Cockraft, making or repairing a military road was held to be a
sovereign function and the Government was held not liable, for the negligence of its servants in the stacking
of gravel on a road resulting in a carriage accident that injured the plaintiff.
Post Constitution Judicial Decisions

State of Haryana v. Santra, the ratio of this case was on the principles of state liability for negligence.
Here it was clearly established that the doctor while performing the operation was acting as a government
servant and acting in the course of employment of the government. Hence when there was negligence, it
amounted to acting in bad faith, and so the defence of sovereign immunity could not be used by the state.
Moreover it was also held that such negligence which could have been perceived by a professional who had
a duty to do so should take into consideration these matters and cannot escape liability by claiming defence
of consent by the petitioner.
The respondent in the above case was a poor lady who went under a sterilization operation at the General
Hospital, Gurgaon, as she already had seven children and wanted to take advantage of the family planning
scheme launched by the State Government of Haryana. Smt. Santra was informed that she would not
conceive in future. Smt. Santra approached the Chief Medical Officer, Gurgaon, for her sterilization in 1988.
But she gave birth to a female child. This led her to file a suit claiming Rs. 2 lakhs as damages for medical
negligence due to “failed sterilization” which was decreed for a sum of Rs. 54,000/- with interest at the rate
of 12 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the payment of the decretal amount.
Two appeals were filed against this decree in the court of District Judge, Gurgaon, which were disposed of
by Addl. District Judge, Gurgaon, by a common judgment dated 10.5.1999. Both the appeals - one filed by
the State of Haryana and the other by Smt. Santra were dismissed. The second appeal filed by the State of
Haryana was summarily dismissed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court on 3.8.1999.
There are two major issues involved in the case. One is that there was negligence on the part of the doctor
who operated on her as the operation was a failure. Moreover as the operation took place in a Government
Hospital, the state should be vicariously liable for the negligent act of its servant in the course of
employment. This law also deals with the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance act, 1956, Ss.20 and 23.the
principle involved for the above claim is the vicarious liability of the state for the negligence of its doctors.
In reply to the claim of compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs by the respondent, the officers defending the state
argued that during the time of the operation only the right Fallopian tube was operated on and the left tube
was left untouched. The appellants also argued that the negligence on the part of the doctors would not
make the state vicariously liable and that the damages paid to her for the maintenance of the child could
not be decreed as there was no element of tort involved. It was further pleaded that Smt. Santra had herself
put her thumb impression on a paper containing a recital that in case the operation was not successful, she
would not claim any damages. It was pleaded that she was estopped from raising the plea of negligence or
from claiming damages for an unsuccessful sterilization operation from the State.
After the District Court dismissed the matter giving a compensation of Rs 54,000 and an interest rate of
12% per annum, the State filed a suit in the Supreme Court challenging the decision. Due to the failure of
the operation and the conceivement of the child, the respondent had filed a suit claiming for damages
worth Rs. 2 lakhs for the maintenance of the child and herself as she already as seven children. The
respondent claimed that if she had offered herself for complete sterilization operation, both the Fallopian
tubes should have been operated upon. The doctor who performed the operation acted in the most
negligent manner.
Moreover she also stated that as the operation was carried out in a government hospital and the doctor
being a government servant, the state was vicariously liable for the act of the doctor as a servant of the
State.
Judgment:
The explanation given by the appellants for absence of state liability was rejected by the trial court which
the suit for a sum of Rs. 54,000 with pendate lite and future interest at 12% per annum. The decision was
confirmed by the Appellant Court and StateHigh Court. The trial court as also the lower appellate court both
recorded concurrent findings of fact that the sterilisation operation performed upon Smt. Santra was not
'complete' as in that operation only the right Fallopian Tube was operated upon while the left Tube was left
untouched. The courts were of the opinion that this exhibited negligence on the part of the Medical Officer
who performed the operation. Smt. Santra, in spite of the unsuccessful operation, was informed that
sterilisation operation was successful and that she would not conceive any child in future. The plea of
estoppel raised by the defendants was also rejected. The amount of Rs. 54,000/- which has been decreed by
the courts below represents the amount of expenses which Smt. Santra would have to incur at the rate of
Rs. 2,000/- per annum in bringing up the child up to the age of puberty.
Having regard to the above facts the court said that Smt. Santra was entitled to full compensation from the
State Government and appeal was dismissed but without any order as to cost.
Absolute liability & strict

liability
In certain situations, a person is held liable for the damages caused by his actions even when the actions are
done without any ill intention or negligence on account of equity and justice. For example, if a person keeps
a lion as a pet and despite of all the precautions the lion escapes the cage and kills someone. In this case, the
owner of the lion will be liable even though he had no ill intention to cause death and had taken all the
precautions to keep the lion in the cage. This seems just because the damage happened only because he
brought a dangerous thing on his property. He was also aware of the consequences if the lion escapes the
cage and so he should be made liable if it escapes and causes damage.
This principle of holding a person liable for his actions without any kind of wrong doing on his part is called
the principle of absolute liability or no fault liability. This principle was first upheld in the case of Ryland vs
Fletcher by the Privy Council in 1868. However, later on some exceptions to this were also established due
to which "strict liability" is considered a more appropriate name for this principle. In this case, the
defendant hired contractors to build a reservoir over his land for providing water to his mill. While digging,
the contractors failed to observe some old disused shafts under the site of the reservoir that lead to
plaintiff's mine on the adjoining land. When water was filled in the reservoir, the water flooded the mine
through the shafts. The plaintiff sued the defendant. The defendant pleaded that there was no intention and
since he did not know about the shafts, he was not negligent even though the contractors were. Even so, he
was held liable. J Blackburn observed that when a person, for his own purposes, brings to his property
anything that is likely to cause a mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril and if it escapes and causes
damage, he must be held liable. He can take the defence that the thing escaped due to an act of the plaintiff
or due to vis major (act of God) but since nothing of that sort happened here, then it is unnecessary to
inquire what excuse would be sufficient.
To this rule promulgated by J Blackburn, another requirement was added by the Court of Exchequer
Chamber, that the use must be a non-natural use of land as was the case in Ryland vs Fletcher itself. For
example, growing of regular trees is a natural use but growing poisonous trees is not. Keeping dogs as pet is
a natural use but keeping wild beasts is not. Thus, the conditions when this rule will apply are –
 The thing kept must be dangerous - The thing kept on the land must be as such as is likely to
cause mischief if it escapes. For example, storing gas or explosives or wild beasts are all likely to cause
damage if they escape.
 The thing must escape - If the thing is within the boundary of the defendant's land, he is not liable.
The thing must escape out of his land for him to be liable. In Crowhurst vs Amersham Burial Board 1878,
branches of a poisonous tree were hanging outside the land of the defendant. Plaintiff's cattle ate them and
died. Defendant was held liable because protrusion of branches outside his property were considered as
escaping from his property. However, in Ponting vs Noakes 1994, when the plaintiff's horse intruded over
his boundary and ate poisonous leaves of the defendant's tree, he was not held liable because there was no
escape.
 The thing must be a non natural use of land - The use must not be an ordinary use of the land.
There must be a special purpose because of which it brings additional danger to other. In Noble vs
Harrison 1926, a branch of a tree growing on defendant's land broke and fell on plaintiff's vehicle. It was
held that growing regular trees is not a non natural use of land and the branch fell because of an inherent
problem and not because of any negligence of the defendant and so he was not liable.
As mentioned before the following are exceptions or defenses against this rule –
 Plaintiff’s own default - If the thing escapes due to plaintiff's fault the defendant cannot be held
liable. In Eastern and South African Telegraph Co. Ltd. v Capetown Tramway Co 1902. The plaintiff's
submarine cable transmissions were disturbed by escape of electric current from defendant's tramway. It
was held that since the current was not causing any problem to regular users and it was causing problem to
the cables only because they were too sensitive and so the defendant cannot be held liable. One cannot
increase his neighbor's liabilities by putting his land to special uses.
 Act of God - In circumstances where no human has control over, no one can be held
liable. In Nichols vs Marsland 1876, the defendant created artificial lakes to store rainwater. In that
particular year, there were exceptionally heavy rains, which caused the embankments to break causing
floods, which broke defendant's bridges. It was held that since there was no negligence on the part of the
defendant and the flood happened only because of rains so heavy that nobody could imagine, the defendant
was not liable.
 Consent of the plaintiff - If the plaintiff has consented for the accumulation of the dangerous thing,
he cannot hold the defendant liable. This is also the case when an activity is done for mutual benefit. For
example, A lives on the ground floor and the defendant lives on the floor above A's. Now, a water tank is
built by the defendant to supply water for both of them. The defendant will not be held liable for leakage of
water from the tank.
 Act of third party - When a third party, who is not an employee or a servant or a contractor of the
defendant is responsible for causing the dangerous thing to escape, the defendant will not be held liable for
the damage. In Box vs Jubb 1879, the overflow from the defendant's reservoir was caused by the blocking
of a drain by some strangers. The defendant was held not liable. However, if such act can be foreseen, this
defence cannot be pleaded because the defendant must take precautions to prevent such an act. In M.P.
Electricity Board vs Shail Kumar AIR 2002, a person was killed by a live electric wire lying on the road.
SC applied the rule of strict liability and held that the defence of act of stranger is not applicable because
snapping of wire can be anticipated and the Electricity Board should have cut off the current as soon as the
wire snapped.

 Statutory Authority - When an act is approved by the legislature or is done on the direction of the
legislature, it is a valid defence for an action of tort even when the rules of Ryland vs Fletcher apply.
However, it is not application when there is negligence.
Position in India
The principle of strict liability is applicable in India as well. For example, Motor Vehicles Act 1938,
recognizes no fault liability. Similarly, the liability of a public carrier such as railways has also been
increased from that of a bailee to an insurer. However, there has been a deviation in the scope of this rule.
Depending on the situation, its scope has been increased as well as decreased by the courts. For example,
in Madras Railway Co. vs Zamindar 1974, the water collected in a pond for agricultural purposes escaped
and caused damage to the railway track and bridges. Here, the application of this rule was restricted
because the collection of water in such a way is a necessity in Indian conditions and so it is a natural use of
the land. This mechanism to store rainwater is used throughout the country and since ages. Therefore, the
defendant was not held liable.
A landmark case in this respect was the case of M C Mehta vs Union of India AIR 1987. In this case, oleum
gas from a fertilizer plant of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers leaked and caused damage to several people and
even killed one advocate. In this case, the rule of Ryland vs Fletcher was applied. However, the company
pleaded sabotage as a defence. SC went one step further and promulgated the rule of Absolute Liability. It
observed that the rule of Ryland vs Fletcher was a century old and was not sufficient to decide cases as
science has advanced a lot in this year. If British laws haven't progressed, Indian courts are not bound to
follow their law and can evolve the laws as per the requirements of the society. It held that an enterprise
that engages in dangerous substances has an absolute responsibility to ensure the safety of the common
public. It is only the company that can know the consequences of its activities and so it must take all the
steps to prevent any accident. If, even after all precautions, accident happens, the company still should be
made absolutely liable for the damages. The reason being that the company has a social obligation to
compensate the people who suffered from its activity. SC also laid down that the measure of compensation
should depend on the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise so that it can have a deterrent effect.
Defamation
Elements of Defamation
Defamation occurs when the defendant makes a defamatory statement of and concerning the plaintiff with
publication to a third party. In matters of public concern, there are additional requirements of fault and
falsity. Damages only need to be proven in certain types of slander cases; otherwise, damages are
presumed.
1. Slander (Defamatory statement): A statement that will adversely affect the plaintiff’s reputation.
The statement must be either alleging factual information or stating an opinion that is likely to be
interpreted as having a factual basis (e.g., merely calling someone mean and nasty would not generally be
considered a defamatory statement).
2. Libel(Publication): For publication to occur, someone other than the plaintiff (a third party) must
hear or read the defamatory statements. Intent is not a factor; publication can occur through the
defendant’s negligence.
Matters of public concern: Can either involve defamatory statements made about public figures and
officials (e.g., famous actors or politicians) or private figures regarding events that are a public
concern (e.g., a private citizen involved in a public demonstration).In addition to the normal requirements
for a defamation claim, matters of public concern have:
 Fault: The plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with a certain level of fault. For public
figures and officials, the standard is reckless disregard for the truth. For private figures regarding events
that are a public concern, a simple negligence standard applies.
 Falsity: The plaintiff must prove that the defamatory statements are false.
Damages requirements for slander vs. libel:
Slander is spoken defamation whereas libel is defamation in a more permanent format (usually written).
Slander per se is a special category of slander where there is no obligation for the plaintiff to prove
damages. Slander per se is based on common law and includes statements that are about a plaintiff’s
profession, impute unchastity to a woman, imply that the plaintiff has a loathsome disease, or accuse the
plaintiff of a crime of moral turpitude. In all other slander claims, the plaintiff must prove damages,
specifically economic harm. Libel claims do not require proof of damages.
Defences to Defamation
There are five major defenses to defamation.
1. Truth: Always a defense in matters of private concern. For matters of public concern, the plaintiff
has the burden to prove falsity as an element of the claim.
2 Consent: A defense in all defamation matters. If the defendant has permission to make the
defamatory statements, the plaintiff cannot support a valid claim.
3. Humor: There is a first amendment defense related to humor if the defendant can prove that the
audience believed the statements were made in jest.
4. Absolute privilege: Applies in very limited circumstances. In general, absolute privilege exempts
persons from liability for potentially defamatory statements made:
 during judicial proceedings
 by high government officials
 by legislators during legislative debates
 during political broadcasts or speeches, and
 in between spouses.
5. Qualified privilege: Other types of communications are subject to what is called a qualified
privilege, meaning that the person making the allegedly defamatory statement may have had some right to
make that statement.
If a qualified privilege applies to a statement, it means that the person suing for defamation must prove that
the person who made the defamatory statement acted intentionally, recklessly, or with malice, hatred,
spite, ill will or resentment, depending on your state’s law.
Just some of the statements for which a qualified privilege applies are:-
 statements made in governmental reports of official proceedings
 statements made by lower government officials such members of town or local boards
 citizen testimony during legislative proceedings
 statements made in self-defense or to warn others about a harm or danger
 certain types of statements made by a former employer to a potential employer regarding the
employee, and
 published book or film reviews that constitute fair criticism.
The employer review qualified privilege is particularly noteworthy. In order to avoid defamation claims,
some employers these days refuse to confirm any details about former employees other than their dates of
employment. But certain types of negative statements might fit in under the qualified privilege category, If,
for example, the employer fired the employee for theft, a statement about that to a potential employer
might qualify as a statement made to warn others about a harm or danger (i.e., the danger of hiring
someone who might steal from you).
Malicious prosecution
Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort, while like the tort of abuse of process, its elements
include:-
(1) intentionally (and maliciously) instituting and pursuing (or causing to be instituted or pursued) a legal
action (civil or criminal) that is
(2) brought without probable cause and
(3) dismissed in favour of the victim of the malicious prosecution.
In some jurisdictions, the term "malicious prosecution" denotes the wrongful initiation of criminal
proceedings, while the term "malicious use of process" denotes the wrongful initiation of civil proceedings.
Criminal prosecuting attorneys and judges are protected from tort liability for malicious prosecution by
doctrines of prosecutorial immunity and judicial immunity. Moreover, the mere filing of a complaint cannot
constitute an abuse of process. The parties who have abused or misused the process, have gone beyond
merely filing a lawsuit. The taking of an appeal, even a frivolous one, is not enough to constitute an abuse of
process. The mere filing or maintenance of a lawsuit, even for an improper purpose, is not a proper basis
for an abuse of process action.
Declining to expand the tort of malicious prosecution, a unanimous California Supreme Court in the case
of Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, 47 Cal. 3d 863, 873 (1989) observed: "While the filing of frivolous
lawsuits is certainly improper and cannot in any way be condoned, in our view the better means of
addressing the problem of unjustified litigation is through the adoption of measures facilitating the speedy
resolution of the initial lawsuit and authorizing the imposition of sanctions for frivolous or delaying
conduct within that first action itself, rather than through an expansion of the opportunities for initiating
one or more additional rounds of malicious prosecution litigation after the first action has been concluded."
Wrongful restraint and

wrongful confinement
Definition of wrongful restraint:-

The offence of wrongful restraint is defined by section 339 of the Indian Penal Code. According to this
section whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any
direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.
But there is one exception to this offence. The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a
person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning
of this section.
To constitute the offence of wrongful restraint there must have the following three ingredients:-
i) The offender obstructed the victim voluntarily;

ii) The obstruction prevented the victim from proceeding in any particular direction;
iii) The victim had every right to proceed to that particular direction.
Definition of wrongful confinement:-

The offence of wrongful confinement has been defined by section 340 of the Indian Penal Code. According
to this section whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such manner as to prevent that person from
proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said wrongfully to confine that person.
The essential ingredients of the offence of wrongful confinement are as follows:-
i) The offender wrongfully restrains a person;
ii) The victim was prevented from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits due to such restraint;
iii) Te victim had every right to proceed beyond that circumscribing limit.
Distinction between wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement;

The offence of wrongful restraint differs from the offence of wrongful confinement in the following
manners:-
i) Offence of wrongful restraint is the genus, whereas the offence of wrongful confinement is a species.
Wrongful confinement is severe form of wrongful restraint.
ii) In the offence of wrongful restraint, the offender obstructs the victim from proceeding to any particular
direction towards which he had right to proceed. But in the offence of wrongful confinement, the offender
obstructs the victim from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits towards which he had right to
proceed.
iii) In the offence of wrongful restraint, the restraint is partial; the victim could proceed towards any other
direction than towards the direction he was restrained. But In the offence of wrongful confinement, the
restraint is total the victim could not proceed towards any direction.
iv) Wrongful confinement is a more serious offence than wrongful restraint.
Trespass
1. Trespass to the person

There are three types of trespass, the first of which is trespass to the person. Whether intent is a necessary
element of trespass to the person varies by jurisdiction. Under English decision, Letang v Cooper, intent is
required to sustain a trespass to the person cause of action; in the absence of intent, negligence is the
appropriate tort. In other jurisdictions, gross negligence is sufficient to sustain a trespass to the person,
such as when a defendant negligently operates an automobile and strikes the plaintiff with great force.
"Intent is to be presumed from the act itself." Generally, trespass to the person consists of three torts:
assault, battery, and false imprisonment.
a. Assault
Under the statutes of various common law jurisdictions, assault is both a crime and a tort. Generally, a
person commits criminal assault if he purposely, knowingly, or recklessly inflicts bodily injury upon
another; if he negligently inflicts bodily injury upon another by means of dangerous weapon; or if through
physical menace, he places another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. A person commits tortuous
assault when he engages in "any act of such a nature as to excite an apprehension of battery [bodily
injury]". In some jurisdictions, there is no requirement that actual physical violence result—simply the
"threat of unwanted touching of the victim" suffices to sustain an assault claim. Consequently, in R v
Constanza, the court found a stalker's threats could constitute assault. Similarly, silence, given certain
conditions, may constitute an assault as well. However, in other jurisdictions, simple threats are
insufficient; they must be accompanied by an action or condition to trigger a cause of action.
Incongruity of a defendant's language and action or of a plaintiff's perception and reality may vitiate an
assault claim. In Tuberville v Savage, the defendant reached for his sword and told the plaintiff that "if it
were not assize-time, I would not take such language from you". In its American
counterpart, Commonwealth v. Eyre, the defendant shouted "if it were not for your gray hairs, I would tear
your heart out". In both cases, the courts held that despite a threatening gesture, the plaintiffs were not in
immediate danger. The actions must give the plaintiff a reasonable expectation that the defendant is going
to use violence; a fist raised before the plaintiff may suffice; the same fist raised behind the window of a
police cruiser will not.
b. Battery
Battery is "any intentional and unpermitted contact with the plaintiff's person or anything attached to it
and practically identified with it". The elements of battery common law vary by jurisdiction. A general rule
to determine liability for battery:
An act which, directly or indirectly, is the legal cause of a harmful contact with another's person makes the
actor liable to the other, if:
(a) the act is done with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact or an apprehension
thereof to the other or a third person, and
(b) contact is not consented to by the other or the other's consent thereto is procured by fraud or duress,
and
(c) the contact is not otherwise privileged.
Battery torts under Commonwealth precedent are subjected to a four point test to determine liability:
1. Directness. Is the sequence of events connecting initial conduct and the harmful contact an
unbroken series?
2. Intentional Act. Was the harmful contact the conscious object of the defendant? Did the defendant
intend to cause the resulting harm? Though the necessity of intent remains an integral part of
Commonwealth battery, some Commonwealth jurisdictions have moved toward the American
jurisprudence of "substantial certainty". If a reasonable person in the defendant's position would
apprehend the substantial certainty of the consequences of his actions, whether the defendant intended to
inflict the injuries is immaterial.
3. Bodily Contact. Was there active (as opposed to passive) contact between the bodies of the plaintiff
and the defendant?
4. Consent. Did the plaintiff consent to the harmful contact? The onus is on the defendant to establish
sufficient and effective consent.
c. False imprisonment
False imprisonment is defined as "unlawful obstruction or deprivation of freedom from restraint of
movement". In some jurisdictions, false imprisonment is a tort of strict liability: no intention on the behalf
of the defendant is needed, but others require an intent to cause the confinement. Physical force, however,
is not a necessary element, and confinement need not be lengthy; the restraint must be complete, though
the defendant needn't resist.
A tort distills false imprisonment liability analysis into a four-prong test:
1. The defendant intends to confine the plaintiff. (This is not necessary in Commonwealth
jurisdictions.)
2. The plaintiff is conscious of the confinement. (Prosser rejects this requirement.)
3. The plaintiff does not consent to the confinement.
4. The confinement was not otherwise privileged.
Defences
a. Child correction
Depending on the jurisdiction, corporal punishment of children by parents or instructors may be a defense
to trespass to the person, so long as the punishment was "reasonably necessary under the circumstances to
discipline a child who has misbehaved" and the defendant "exercised prudence and
restraint". Unreasonable punishments, such as violently grabbing a student's arm and hair, have no
defense.
b. Consent
Denning, LJ: "In an ordinary fight with fists there is no cause of action to either of [the combatants] for any
injury suffered."
Perhaps the most common defense for the torts of trespass to the person is that of volenti non fit injuria,
literally, "to a willing person, no injury is done", but shortened to "consensual privilege" or "consent". If a
plaintiff participates in a sporting activity in which physical contact is ordinary conduct, such as rugby, they
are considered to have consented. This is not the case if the physical contact went beyond what could be
expected, such as the use of hand gun during a fistfight, as in Andrepont v. Naquin, or where the injuries
were suffered not from the plaintiff's participation in the sport but inadequate safety measures taken, as
in Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd. Where the plaintiff and defendant voluntarily agree to
participate in a fight, some jurisdictions will deny relief in civil action, so long as the injuries caused are
proportionate: "in an ordinary fight with fists there is no cause of action to either of [the combatants] for
any injury suffered". Other jurisdictions refuse to recognize consent as a defense to mutual combat and
instead provide relief under the doctrine of comparative negligence.
Medical care gives rise to many claims of trespass to the person. A physician, "treating a mentally
competent adult under non-emergency circumstances, cannot properly undertake to perform surgery or
administer other therapy without the prior consent of his patient". Should he do so, he commits a trespass
to the person and is liable to damages. However, if the plaintiff is informed by a doctor of the broad risks of
a medical procedure, there will be no claim under trespass against the person for resulting harm caused;
the plaintiff's agreement constitutes "informed consent". In those cases where the patient does not possess
sufficient mental capacity to consent, doctors must exercise extreme caution. In F v West Berkshire Health
Authority, the House of Lords instructed British physicians that, to justify operating upon such an
individual, there :-
(1) must be a necessity to act when it is not practicable to communicate with the assisted person,and
(2) the action taken must be such as a reasonable person would in all the circumstances take, acting in the
best interests of the assisted person".
c. Self-defence / defence of others / defence of property
Self-defense, or non-consensual privilege, is a valid defense to trespasses against the person, assuming that
it constituted the use of "reasonable force which they honestly and reasonably believe is necessary to
protect themselves or someone else, or property". The force used must be proportionate to the threat, as
ruled in Cockcroft v Smith.
2. Trespass to chattels
Trespass to chattels, also known as trespass to goods or trespass to personal property, is defined as "an
intentional interference with the possession of personal property proximately causing injury". While
originally a remedy for the aspiration of personal property, the tort grew to incorporate any interference
with the personal property of another. In some jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, trespass to
chattels has been codified to clearly define the scope of the remedy; in most jurisdictions, trespass to chattel
remains a purely common law remedy, the scope of which varies by jurisdiction.
Generally, trespass to chattels possesses three elements:
1. Lack of consent. The interference with the property must be non-consensual. A claim does not lie if, in
acquiring the property, the purchaser consents contractually to certain access by the seller. "Any use exceeding
the consent" authorized by the contract, should it cause harm, gives rise to a cause for action.
2. Actual harm. The interference with the property must result in actual harm. The threshold for actual
harm varies by jurisdiction. In California, for instance, an electronic message may constitute a trespass if the
message interferes with the functioning of the computer hardware, but the plaintiff must prove that this
interference caused actual hardware damage or actual impaired functioning.
3. Intentionality. The interference must be intentional. What constitutes intention varies by jurisdiction,
however, the Restatement (Second) of Torts indicates that "intention is present when an act is done for the
purpose of using or otherwise intermeddling with a chattel or with knowledge that such an intermeddling will,
to a substantial certainty, result from the act", and continues: "it is not necessary that the actor should know or
have reason to know that such intermeddling is a violation of the possessory rights of another".
Remedies for trespass to chattel include damages, liability for conversion, and injunction, depending on the
nature of the interference.
Traditional applications
Trespass to chattels typically applies to tangible property and allows owners of such property to seek relief
when a third party intentionally interferes or intermeddles in the owner's possession of his personal
property. "Interference" is often interpreted as the "taking" or "destroying" of goods, but can be as minor as
"touching" or "moving" them in the right circumstances. In Kirk v Gregory, the defendant moved jewelry from
one room to another, where it was stolen. The deceased owner's executor successfully sued her for trespass to
chattel. Furthermore, personal property, as traditionally construed, includes living objects, except where
property interests are restricted by law. Thus animals are personal property, but organs are not.
3. Trespass to land
Trespass to land involves the "wrongful interference with one's possessory rights in real property." It is not
necessary to prove that harm was suffered to bring a claim, and is instead actionable per se. While most
trespasses to land are intentional, British courts have held liability holds for trespass committed
negligently. Similarly, some American courts will find liability for unintentional intrusions only where such
intrusions arise under circumstances evincing negligence or involve a highly dangerous activity. Exceptions exist
for entering land adjoining a road unintentionally (such as in a car accident), as in River Wear Commissioners v
Adamson. In some jurisdictions trespass while in possession of a firearm, which may include a low-power air
weapon without ammunition, constitutes a more grave crime of armed trespass.
Defences
There are several defenses to trespass to land; license, justification by law, necessity and jus tertii. License is
express or implied permission, given by the possessor of land, to be on that land. These licenses are irrevocable
unless there is a flaw in the agreement or it is given by a contract. Once revoked, a license-holder becomes a
trespasser if they remain on the land. Justification by law refers to those situations in which there is statutory
authority permitting a person to go onto land, such as the England and Wales' Police and Criminal Evidence Act
1984, which allows the police to enter land for the purposes of carrying out an arrest, or the California state
constitution, which permits protests on grocery stores and strip malls, despite their presenting a general
nuisance to store owners and patrons. Jus tertii is where the defendant can prove that the land is not possessed
by the plaintiff, but by a third party, as in Doe d Carter v Barnard. This defense is unavailable if the plaintiff is a
tenant and the defendant a landlord who had no right to give the plaintiff his lease (e.g. an illegal apartment
rental, an unauthorized sublet, etc.). Necessity is the situation in which it is vital to commit the trespass; in Esso
Petroleum Co v Southport Corporation, the captain of a ship committed trespass by allowing oil to flood a
shoreline. This was necessary to protect his ship and crew, however, and the defense of necessity was
accepted. Necessity does not, however, permit a defendant to enter another's property when alternative, though
less attractive, courses of action exist.
Unit-IV Negligence
1. Basic concepts
2 Theories of negligence
3. Contributory negligence
4. Special situations of negligence – Hazardous
Substance and Machinery product liability, liability
towards ultimate transferee.
Nuisance
1. Definition essentials and types
2 Acts of obstructions (view and formation of
quees)
3. Absolute and Strict liability
4. Legal remedies
5. Award of damages
6. Injunction
7. Extra-legal remedies
Negligence
In everyday usage, the word ‘negligence’ denotes mere carelessness. In legal sense it signifies failure to
exercise standard of care which the doer as a reasonable man should have exercised in the circumstances.
In general, there is a legal duty to take care when it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to do so was
likely to cause injury. Negligence is a mode in which many kinds of harms may be caused by not taking such
adequate precautions.
According to Winfield and Jolowicz- Negligence is the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in
damage, undesired by the defendant to the plaintiff.
In Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works Co., (1856) LR 11 Exch. 781; Alderson, B. defined negligence as,
negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man…….. would do, or doing something
which a prudent or reasonable man would not do.
In Lochgelly Iron & Coal Co. v. Mc Mullan, 1934 AC 1; Lord Wright said, negligence means more than
headless or careless conduct, whether in commission or omission; it properly connotes the complex
concept of duty, breach and damage thereby suffered by the person to whom the duty was owing.
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 liability for negligence is that the defendant owed a
legal duty towards the plaintiff. The following case laws will throw some light upon this essential element.
In Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills Ltd., 1935 AC 85; the plaintiff purchased two sets of woolen
underwear from a retailer and contacted a skin disease by wearing underwear. The woolen underwear
contained an excess of sulphates which the manufacturers negligently failed to remove while washing
them. The manufacturers were held liable as they failed to perform their duty to take care.
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 neighbour
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 omissions which are called in question”.
3. Duty must be towards the plaintiff- It is not sufficient that the defendant owed a duty to take care. It
must also be established that the defendant owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff.
In Bourhill v. Young, 1943 AC 92; the plaintiff, a fishwife, alighted from a tram car. While she was being
helped in putting her basket on her back, a motor-cyclist after passing the tram collided with a motor car at
the distance of 15 yards on the other side of the tram and died instantly. The plaintiff could see neither the
deceased nor the accident as the tram was standing between her and the place of accident. She had simply
heard about the collision and after the dead body had been removed she went to the place and saw blood
left on the road. Consequently, she suffered a nervous shock and gave birth to a still-born child of 8 months.
She sued the representatives of the deceased motor-cyclist. It was held that the deceased had no duty of
care towards the plaintiff and hence she could not claim damages.
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 that
duty.
In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti, AIR 1966 SC 1750; a clock-tower in the heart of the
Chandni Chowk, Delhi collapsed causing the death of a number of persons. The structure was 80 years old
whereas its normal life was 40-45 years. The Municipal Corporation of Dellhi having the control of the
structure failed to take care and was therefore, liable.
In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sushila Devi, AIR 1999 SC 1929; a person passing by the road died
because of fall of branch of a tree standing on the road, on his head. The Municipal Corporation was held
liable.
5. Consequent damage or consequential harm to the plaintiff: The last essential requisite for the
tort of negligence is that the damage caused to the plaintiff was the result of the breach of the duty. The
harm may fall into following classes:-
 physical harm, i.e. harm to body;
 harm to reputation;
 harm to property, i.e. land and buildings and rights and interests pertaining thereto, and his goods;
 economic loss; and mental harm or nervous shock.
In Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra (1996) 2 SCC 634; a cotton mop was left inside
the body by the negligence of the doctor. The doctor was held liable.
Defences for negligence: In an action for negligence following defences are available:-
1. Contributory negligence: It was the Common law rule that anyone who by his own negligence
contributed to the injury of which he complains cannot maintain an action against another in respect of it.
Because he will be considered in law to be author of his wrong.
Butterfield v. Forrester, (1809) 11 East 60; the defendant had put a pole across a public thoroughfare in
Durby, which he had no right to do. The plaintiff was riding that way at 8’O clock in the evening in August,
when dusk was coming on, but the obstruction was still visible from a distance of 100 yards, he was riding
violently, came against the pole and fell with the horse. It was held that the plaintiff could not claim
damages as he was also negligent.
2. Act of god or vis major: It is such a direct, violent, sudden and irresistible act of nature as could not, by
any amount of human foresight have been foreseen or if foreseen, could not by any amount of human care
and skill, have been resisted. Such as, storm, extraordinary fall of rain, extraordinary high tide, earth quake
etc.
In Nichols v. Marsland, (1875) LR 10 Ex.255; the defendant had a series of artificial lakes on his land in
the construction or maintenance of which there had been no negligence. Owing to an exceptional heavy
rain, some of the reservoirs burst and carried away four country bridges. It was held that, the defendant
was not liable as the water escaped by the act of God.
3. Inevitable accident: Inevitable accident also works as a defence of negligence. An inevitable accident is
that which could not possibly, be prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill. it means
accident physically unavoidable.
In Brown v. Kendal, (1859) 6 Cussing 292; the plaintiff’s and defendant’s dogs were fighting, while the
defendant was trying to separate them, he accidentally hit the plaintiff in his eye who was standing nearby.
The injury to the plaintiff was held to be result of inevitable accident and the defendant was not liable.
In Holmes v. Mather, (1875) LR 10 Ex.261, 267; a pair of horses were being driven by the groom of the
defendant on a public highway. On account of barking of a dog, the horses started running very fast. The
groom made best possible efforts to control them but failed. The horses knocked down the plaintiff who
was seriously injured, it was held to be an inevitable accident and the defendant was not liable.
In Stanley v. Powell, (1891) 1 QB 86; the plaintiff and the defendant, who were members of a shooting
party, went for pheasant shooting. The defendant fired at a pheasant, but the shot from his gun glanced off
an oak tree and injured the plaintiff. It was held that the accident was an inevitable accident and the
defendant was not liable.
Res ipsa loquitur-

It means ‘the things itself speaks’. When the accident explains only one thing and that is that the accident
could not ordinarily occur unless the defendant had been negligent, the law raises a presumption of
negligence on the part of the defendant.
Hambrook v. Stokes Bors. – Soon after parted with her children in a narrow street, a lady saw a lorry
violently running down the narrow street. When told by some bystander that a child answering the
description of one of her children had been injured, she suffered a nervous shock which resulted in her
death. The defendant was held liable.
Contributory negligence
When the plaintiff by his own want of care contributes to the damage caused by the negligence or wrongful
conduct of the defendant, he is considered to be guilty of contributory negligence. This is a defence in which
the defendant has to prove that the plaintiff failed to take reasonable care of his own safety and that was a
contributing factor to harm.
Rural Transport Service v. Bezlum Bibi (1980) – The conductor of an overcrowded bus invited
passengers to travel on the roof of the bus. The driver ignored the fact that there were passengers on the
roof and tried to overtake a cart. As a result, a passenger was hit by a branch of tree, fell down, received
injury and died. It was held that both the driver and the conductor were negligent towards the passengers,
there was also contributory negligence on the part of the passengers including the deceased, who took the
risk of travelling on the roof of the bus.
Yoginder Paul Chowdhury v. Durgadas (1972) – The Delhi High Court has held that a pedestrian who
tries to cross a road all of a sudden and is hit by a moving vehicle, is guilty of contributory negligence.
Doctrine of alternative danger –

There may be certain circumstances when the plaintiff is justified in taking some risk where some
dangerous situation has been created by the defendant. The plaintiff might become nervous by a dangerous
situation created by the defendant and to save his person or property, he may take an alternative risk. If in
doing so, the plaintiff suffered any damage, he will be entitled to recover from the defendant.
Jones v. Boyce (1816) – The plaintiff was a passenger of defendant’s coach. The coach was driven so
negligently that the plaintiff jumped off the bus fearing an accident and broke his leg. It was held that the
plaintiff would be entitled to recover.
Shayam Sunder v. State of Rajasthan (1974) – Due to the negligence on the part of the defendants, a truck
belonging to them caught fire. One of the occupants, Navneetlal, jumped out to save himself from the fire, be
struck against a stone lying by the roadside and died. The defendants were held liable.
Negligence in our laws

The Penal Code, 1860 –
 s. 284 – If anyone has custody of poisonous substance and fails to guard against probable danger is
punishable with 6 month or 1000 taka or with both.
 s. 285 - If anyone acts rashly or negligently to endanger human life with fire or combustible
substance is punishable with 6 month or 1000 taka or with both.
 s. 286 – If anyone acts rashly or negligently to endanger human life with explosive substance is
 s. 287 – If anyone acts rashly or negligently to endanger human life with any machinery is
 s. 288 – If anyone in pulling down or repairing any building knowingly or negligently omits to
guard against probable danger to human life, he will be punishable with 6 months or 1000 taka or with
both.
 s. 289 – If anyone knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any animal in his
possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life or any probable danger or
grievous hurt from such animal, shall be punished with 6 months or 1000 taka or with both.
Nuisance
Nuisance claims deal with infringement of property rights. Generally, the remedy for a nuisance claim is
damages; however, injunctive relief is available in cases where damages are considered inadequate
(e.g., toxic fumes are creating a serious health risk to the surrounding community).
The two types of nuisance are private nuisance and public nuisance. A private nuisance is a civil wrong; it is
the unreasonable, unwarranted,or unlawful use of one's property in a manner that substantially interferes
with the enjoyment or use of another individual's property, withoutan actual Trespass or physical invasion
to the land. A public nuisance is a criminal wrong; it is an act or omission that obstructs, damages,or inconv
eniences the rights of the community.
1. Public Nuisance
The term public nuisance covers a wide variety of minor crimes that threaten the health, morals, safety, com
fort, convenience, or welfare of acommunity. Violators may be punished by a criminal sentence, a fine, or bo
th. A defendant may also be required to remove a nuisance or topay the costs of removal. For example, a ma
nufacturer who has polluted a stream might be fined and might also be ordered to pay the costof cleanup. P
ublic nuisances may interfere with public health, such as in the keeping of diseased animals or a malarial po
nd. Public safetynuisances include shooting fireworks in the streets, storing explosives, practicing medicine
without a license, or harboring a vicious dog.Houses of prostitution, illegal liquor establishments, Gaming h
ouses, and unlicensed prizefights are examples of nuisances that interferewith public morals. Obstructing a
highway or creating a condition to make travel unsafe or highly disagreeable is examples of nuisancesthrea
tening the public convenience.
A public nuisance interferes with the public as a class, not merely one person or a group of citizens. No civil
remedy exists for a privatecitizen harmed by a public nuisance, even if his or her harm was greater than the
harm suffered by others; a criminal prosecution is theexclusive remedy. However, if the individual suffers
harm that is different from that suffered by the general public, the individual maymaintain a tort action for
damages. For example, if dynamiting has thrown a large boulder onto a public highway, those who use the
highwaycannot maintain a nuisance action for the inconvenience. However, a motorist who is injured from
colliding with the boulder may bring a tortaction for personal injuries.
Some nuisances can be both public and private in certain circumstances where the public nuisance substant
ially interferes with the use of anindividual's adjoining land. For example, Pollution of a river might constitu
te both a public and a private nuisance. This is known as a mixednuisance.
2. Private Nuisance
A private nuisance is an interference with a person's enjoyment and use of his land. The law recognizes that
landowners, or those in rightfulpossession of land, have the right to the unimpaired condition of the prope
rty and to reasonable comfort and convenience in its occupation.
Examples of private nuisances abound. Nuisances that interfere with the physical condition of the land incl
ude vibration or blasting thatdamages a house; destruction of crops; raising of a water table; or the pollutio
n of soil, a stream, or an underground water supply. Examplesof nuisances interfering with the comfort, con
venience, or health of an occupant are foul odors, noxious gases, smoke, dust, loud noises,excessive light, or
high temperatures. Moreover, a nuisance may also disturb an occupant's mental tranquility, such as a neigh
bor who keepsa vicious dog, even though an injury is only threatened and has not actually occurred.
An attractive nuisance is a danger likely to lure children onto a person's land. For example, an individual w
ho has a pool on his property has alegal obligation to take reasonable precautions, such as erecting a fence,
to prevent foreseeable injury to children.
Trespass is sometimes confused with nuisance, but the two are distinct. A trespass action protects against a
n invasion of one's right toexclusive possession of land. If a landowner drops a tree across her neighbor's b
oundary line she has committed a trespass; if her dog barksall night keeping the neighbor awake, she may b
e liable for nuisance.
Legal Responsibility
A private nuisance is a tort, that is, a civil wrong. To determine accountability for an alleged nuisance, a cou
rt will examine three factors: thedefendant's fault, whether there has been a substantial interference with t
he plaintiff's interest, and the reasonableness of the defendant'sconduct.
Fault -
Fault means that the defendant intentionally, negligently, or recklessly interfered with the plaintiff's use an
d enjoyment of the land orthat the defendant continued her conduct after learning of actual harm or substa
ntial risk of future harm to the plaintiff's interest. For example,a defendant who continues to spray chemica
ls into the air after learning that they are blowing onto the plaintiff's land is deemed to beintending that res
ult. Where it is alleged that a defendant has violated a statute, proving the elements of the statute will establ
ish fault.
Substantial Interference-
The law is not intended to remedy trifles or redress petty annoyances. To establish liability under a nuisan
cetheory, interference with the plaintiff's interest must be substantial. Determining substantial interference
in cases where the physical conditionof the property is affected will often be fairly straightforward. More c
hallenging are those cases predicated on personal inconvenience,
discomfort, or annoyance. To determine whether an interference is substantial, courts apply the standard o
f an ordinary member of thecommunity with normal sensitivity and temperament. A plaintiff cannot, by put
ting his or her land to an unusually sensitive use, make anuisance out of the defendant's conduct that would
otherwise be relatively harmless.
Reasonableness of Defendant's Conduct-

If the interference with the plaintiff's interest is substantial, a determination must then be madethat it is un
reasonable for the plaintiff to bear it or to bear it without compensation. This is a Balancing process weighi
ng the respectiveinterests of both parties. The law recognizes that the activities of others must be accommo
dated to a certain extent, particularly in matters ofindustry, commerce, or trade. The nature and gravity of t
he harm is balanced against the burden of preventing the harm and the usefulness ofthe conduct.
The following are factors to be considered:
 Extent and duration of the disturbance;
 Nature of the harm;
 Social value of the plaintiff's use of his or her property or other interest;
 Burden to the plaintiff in preventing the harm;
 Value of the defendant's conduct, in general and to the particular community;
 Motivation of the defendant;
 Feasibility of the defendant's mitigating or preventing the harm;
 Locality and suitability of the uses of the land by both parties.
Zoning boards use these factors to enact restrictions of property uses in specific locations. In this way, zoni
ng laws work to prohibit publicnuisances and to maintain the quality of a neighborhood
Defences
In an attempt to escape liability, a defendant may argue that legislation (such as zoning laws or licenses) au
thorizes a particular activity.Legislative authority will not excuse a defendant from liability if the conduct is
unreasonable.
A defendant may not escape liability by arguing that others are also contributing to the harm; damages will
be apportioned according to adefendant's share of the blame. Moreover, a defendant is liable even where hi
s or her actions without the actions of others would not haveconstituted a nuisance.
Defendants sometimes argue that a plaintiff "came to a nuisance" by moving onto land next to an already op
erating source of interference. Anew owner is entitled to the reasonable use and enjoyment of his or her lan
d the same as anyone else, but the argument may be consideredin determining the reasonableness of the de
fendant's conduct. It may also have an impact in determining damages because the purchaseprice may have
reflected the existence of the nuisance.
Remedies
Redress for nuisance is commonly monetary damages. An Injunction or abatement may also be proper und
er certain circumstances. Aninjunction orders a defendant to stop, remove, restrain, or restrict a nuisance o
r abandon plans for a threatened nuisance. In public nuisancecases, a fine or sentence may be imposed, in a
ddition to abatement or injunctive relief.
Injunction is a drastic remedy, used only when damage or the threat of damage is irreparable and not satisf
actorily compensable only bymonetary damages. The court examines the economic hardships to the parties
and the interest of the public in allowing the continuation ofthe enterprise.
A Self- A- Help remedy abatement by the plaintiff is available under limited
circumstances. This privilege must be exercised within areasonable time after learning of the nuisance and
usually requires notice to the defendant and the defendant's failure to act. Reasonableforce may be used to
employ the abatement, and a plaintiff may be liable for unreasonable or unnecessary damages. For example
, dead treelimbs extending dangerously over a neighbor's house may be removed by the neighbor in danger
, after notifying the offending landowner ofthe nuisance. In cases where an immediate danger to health, pro
perty, or life exists, no notification is necessary.

1.2.tort Law Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.2.tort Law Notes

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

1.2.tort Law Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Class –B.A.LL.B (HONS.) I SEM.

Subject – Law of Torts

Unit-I Evolution of Law of Torts

Torts English perspective

Torts Indian perspective

 The person who commits or is guilty of a tort is called a "tortfeasor".

 Unliquidated damages (uncountable) (law) An amount owed to a plaintiff in a lawsuit by the

 Distinction between ‘Misfeasance’, ‘nonfeasance’ and ‘malfeasance’ – Misfeasance is the improper

Against the Property

Essential elements to prove a Tort

Distinction between Tort and crime-

Distinction between Tort and breach of contract-

Distinction between Tort and Breach of trust-

(i) Types of damages -

(ii) Restitution of property – Restitution means restoration of anything to its rightful

Injuria sine Damanum

Injuria Sine Damno

Damnum Sine Injuria –

Unit-II Justification in Tort

Torts that are not actionable / General Defences for Torts

2. Plaintiff the wrongdoer

Unit-III Doctrine of sovereign immunity and its relevance

1. Employee/employer relationships: An employer is vicariously liable for the acts of an employee

2. Independent contractor/employer relationships: Generally, employers are not vicariously liable

3. Automobile driver/owner relationships: In many jurisdictions, the owner is only vicariously

5. The liability of corporations in tort

Pre-Constitution Judicial Decisions:

Post Constitution Judicial Decisions

Absolute liability & strict

Wrongful restraint and

Definition of wrongful restraint:-

i) The offender obstructed the victim voluntarily;

Definition of wrongful confinement:-

Distinction between wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement;

1. Trespass to the person

Res ipsa loquitur-

Doctrine of alternative danger –

Negligence in our laws

Reasonableness of Defendant's Conduct-

You might also like