Motive

A motive is a person’s state of mind that inspires him to do an act. It usually

means the purpose of the act’s commission. Motive is generally irrelevant in
tort law, just like intention. Motive leads to intention formation, which is the
ultimate cause. Motive is the ultimate object with which an act is done, while
the immediate purpose is the intention.

The cause that moves individuals to induce a certain action is a motive, in

law, especially criminal law. Typically, the legal system allows motive to be
proven to make plausible reasons for committing a crime for the accused.
However, motive is not essential for a tort action to be maintained. It is not
just because the motive is good that a wrongful act becomes legal. Similarly,
due to an improper, evil motive or malice, a lawful act does not become
wrongful.

The decisions of Lord Halsbury and Lord Watson in Bradford Corporation v.

Pickles and Allen V. Flood may be treated as one of the earliest decisions that
settled that motive is irrelevant in tort.

 Bradford Corporation v. Pickles [1895] AC 587

Facts:

The plaintiffs owned land below which were water springs used to supply
water to Bradford town for more than 40 years. The defendant owned land
over the plaintiffs on a higher level. There was a natural reservoir under the
defendant’s land and water flowed from that reservoir down to the springs of
the plaintiffs. The defendant, however, sank a shaft into his land to alter
water flow. This significantly reduced the amount of water flowing into the
springs of the plaintiffs. There was sufficient proof to suggest that the
defendant was following this course of action, not to give himself any
immediate advantage, but merely to deprive the plaintiffs of water. The
plaintiffs insisted that this was malicious and that they had the right to an
injunction to stop the defendant from acting in this way.

Held:

Lord Halsbury L.C.: It’s not a case where the state of mind of the person
doing the act can affect the right to do it. If it was a lawful act, however ill
the motive might be, he had a right to do it. Motives and intentions in such a
question as is now before your lordships seem to me to be absolutely
irrelevant.

Lord Watson: No use of property, which would be legal if due to a proper

motive, can become illegal because it is prompted by a motive that is
improper or even malicious.

 Allen v. Flood [1898] AC 1

Facts:

Flood and Walter was a shipwright who was employed on a ship, liable at any
time to be discharged. As they had worked for a rival employer, fellow
workers objected to their employment. Allen was a trade union
representative on the vessel for the other employees and approached the
employers, telling them that the other staff would strike if they did not
discharge Flood and Walter. Consequently, the employers discharged Flood
and Walter and refused to re-employ them where they would otherwise.
Flood and Walter brought the action to induce a contract breach in a
malicious way.

Held:

The decision was reversed, finding that Allen had not infringed any Flood and
Walter’s legal rights. There was no legal right for them to be employed by
the employer and Allen did not perform an unlawful act and did not use any
unlawful means to obtain the dismissal of the employee. Allen was found to
have represented what would happen to the employers if they continued to
work with Flood and Walter. He relied on what he believed was going to
happen, and he was believed by the employers. This was not regarded as an
obstruction or disturbance of any right: it was not the procurement of any
infringement of rights. The conduct of Allen was not actionable, although his
motive might be malicious or bad.

To conclude, we could say that a good motive is not to justify otherwise

illegal acts, and a bad motive does not make an otherwise legal act wrong.

Intention
A tortious liability may arise if a person causes any injury related to the life,
property, reputation, etc. of the victim. According to tort law, the liability
may be incurred irrespective of whether the injury was intentionally or
accidentally inflicted.

Depending on the intention, a tort can be divided into two broad categories
namely:

1. Intentional Tort
2. Unintentional Tort

a) Intentional Tort
Some action must be taken with a purpose to commit an intentional tort, i.e.
an intention is must to commit an act. It is essential that there is a mental
element.

Garratt v. Dailey, 46 Wash. 2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091 (Wash.

1955)

In 1955, a young boy whose name was Brian pulled a chair from underneath
Ruth Garratt as she went to sit down. Ruth fell and broke her hip because of
Brian’s chair-pulling. Ruth filed a lawsuit against the family of Brian claiming
to have acted intentionally, causing her personal injury. Although Brian did
not intend to cause injury, the court found that the act resulted in the hip
being broken and awarded Ruth $11,000 in damages. Brian’s family appealed
on the grounds that children 5 years of age could not be held liable for an
intentional tort. The court ruled that children can be held liable and that the
intent element is in place if the person knew with certainty that the act
carries a risk of injury.

Intentional tort includes:

Battery

When physically applying some force to another person’s body in an

offensive manner that causes some harm is called battery.

Assault

When one person’s act creates an apprehension in another person’s mind

that such act is likely or intended to cause such harm.

The difference between battery and assault is, in battery, physical contact is
mandatory while in assault, physical contact is not mandatory as the purpose
is to threaten not to harm.

False Imprisonment

It is the person’s unlawful confinement without his will. It is not necessary to

place a person behind bars, a mere impossibility of escape from a certain
area against the person’s will is sufficient to constitute false imprisonment
wrong. It includes the use of physical force (actual expression of force is not
always required), a physical barrier such as a locked room, invalid use of
legal authority. False arrest is the part of false imprisonment that includes
police detention of the person without legal authority. Malicious prosecution
falls under the category of false imprisonment.
Trespass

It is the intentional, unreasonable invasion of property, land, person or

goods. The unreasonable interference can harass or harm the other person,
however slight it may be. The owner of the property’s legal right is infringed
because the misappropriation or exploitation of his right deprives him of his
right to enjoy the benefit of the property.

b) Unintentional Tort
The defendant causes injury to the plaintiff in the case of unintentional
torture, but without any mala fide intention. It could be called an unexpected
accident. This was inadvertently done by the person who caused the injury
because he/she was not being careful. Such an individual may be described
as negligent or reckless. In the case of unintentional tort, it may be noted
that the injury is caused by the omission of the “duty of care” that a
reasonable and prudent man should have considered.

Wilkinson v. Downton (1897) 2 QB 57

The defendant joked that her husband had encountered an accident and had
been admitted to a hospital. She was shocked by this news and fell seriously
ill. She subsequently sued the defendant for damages under tort. The
defendant claimed he never wanted to harm the plaintiff, but only cut a joke.
The court dismissed his claim, holding him liable. Here, the court observed
that mere intention was not an essential factor in tort. The defendant was
aware of the natural and probable consequences of his act which caused the
plaintiff to suffer damage. He was therefore liable, whether he intended to do
so or not.

The distinction between Motive and Intention

The motive has been described as “the ulterior intent.” These two words are
often used in popular and even legal usage interchangeably. The ultimate
object with which an act is done is the motive, whereas the intention is the
immediate purpose. For example, A, steals a loaf of bread from B’s bakery
shop. A is liable for theft as well as for illegal trespass, though A’s motive
was to feed his starving child, not to cause loss to B.

Malice
Malice means spite or ill-will in the popular sense. When an act is done with
bad intention, called Malice. An act or statement becomes malicious if used
for purposes other than those sanctioned by the law authority.

It is possible to discuss the term malice in both legal and popular sense. In
the legal sense, it means’ intentional wrongdoing, without a just cause or
excuse or a lack of a reasonable or probable cause’ and it is known as
‘malice in law’ . In the popular sense, it means’ an improper or evil motive’
and it is known as ‘malice in fact’.

It emphasizes here that this wonderful act does not become lawful merely
because the motive is good. Similarly, a lawful act does not become wrongful
because of an improper, bad or evil motive or malice.

In the case of Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal AIR 1975 All 132, the
court observed that “mere malice cannot disentitle a person from taking
recourse of law for getting the wrong undone. It is, therefore, not necessary
to investigate whether the action is motivated by malice or not.”

Exceptions to the Rule

In the following cases, malice becomes relevant in determining tortious
liability:

 When the act is otherwise unlawful and wrongful intention can be

gathered from the circumstances of the case.
In Balak Glass Emporium v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., in a multi-
storeyed building, the water from the upper story, under the control of the
defendant escaped to the lower floor, occupied by the plaintiff. There was
evidence of ill will between the plaintiff and the defendant. It was evidence of
ill will between the plaintiff and the defendant. It was found that not only the
tap of the upper floor was left fully open, but the outlet of the tank was also
closed. There was only one inference that the said act was done by the
defendant, with the wrongful intention, and hence, the plaintiff was held
entitled to get damages for the same.

 Malice with respect to the litigant to be demonstrated in torts of

deceit, malicious prosecution.
 The presence of malice in cases of defamation negatives good faith
and the defendant cannot avoid liability by the defense of qualified
privilege in such a case.
 Causing personal discomfort by an unlawful motive may turn a
qualified lawful act into a nuisance.
 Malice which results in aggravation of damages.

Conclusion
By “mental elements”, we mean a person’s ‘intention’ to harm another
person by infringing his or her legal rights. Intention means a state of mind
where the wrongdoer is fully aware of his actions and their consequences. In
addition, he has a desire to achieve these consequences. In criminal law, an
essential ingredient of crime is the mental element. Here the mere act of the
wrongdoer is not enough to hold him liable for an offense. Another
requirement is the presence of a guilty mind.

The underlying principle is that a wrongdoer can not escape liability under
the law of tort, simply because he has no intention of causing harm.
However, in some cases, an offender may not be held liable (e.g., qualified
privileges).