7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

1/34

Q. Define Law of Tort and Law of Torts? Discuss its nature.

'OR'

"A tort is a civil injury but all civil injuries are not Torts". E!lain. Distinuis# between Tort

and $ri%e. &ow %any inds of Torts are t#ere?

T#e e!ression 'Torts' is of (renc# oriin. T#e word tort #as been derived fro% t#e latin word

"tortu%" w#ic# %eans 'twisted' or a 'crooed act'. )n eneral* it %eans conduct t#at adversely

affects t#e leal ri#t of ot#ers and is t#us* "wron". (or a #ealt#y society it is necessary t#at it

be free of anti+social ele%ents and t#at an individual s#ould #ave freedo% to eercise #is

ri#ts wit#out bein restricted by ot#ers. (urt#er* if t#ere is a transression of any ri#t* t#ere

%ust be a way to co%!ensate or to restore t#e ri#t. T#is is essentially w#at t#e %ai%* ",bi

just ibire%ediu%" i%!lies. -#ere ever t#ere is a ri#t* t#ere is a re%edy. )ndeed* a ri#t #as no

value if t#ere is no way to enforce it. uc# ri#ts of individuals !ri%arily oriinate fro% two

sourcees + contractual obliations and in#erent ri#ts t#at are available to all t#e citi/ens

aainst every ot#er citi/en* as ri#ts in re%.

T#e e!ression 'wron' is of two inds* na%ely0+

123 4ublic wron5

163 4rivate wron.

All acts* w#ic# are identified to be !unis#able under t#e )ndian 4enal $ode* 2789 are called

offences 1 sec. :9*).4.$.3 or cri%es or !ublic wrons and are tried in cri%inal courts. T#e rest

are called !rivate wrons and are tried in civil courts. T#erefore* tort is a civil wron and is

tried in civil court. (urt#er* wron taes !lace in two ways +vi/. 1a3 co%%ission of an act. e.

;elient o!eration

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

2/34

T#e !erson w#o co%%its tort is called ''tort+feasor'' or ''wrondoer''. T#e ot#er !erson

w#o suffered injury or da%aes is called injured or arieved.

DEFINITION:-T#ere can be innu%erable ty!es of acts t#at can transress t#e ri#ts of ot#ers

and it is not !ossible to co%e u! wit# a definition t#at can acco%%odate all t#e cases.

&owever* t#e followin are so%e definitions fro% t#e e!erts are iven below +

123 Accordin to al%ond 0+ '' A tort is a civil wron for w#ic# t#e re%edy is action in co%%on

law for unli=uidated da%aes and w#ic# is not eclusively a breac# of contract or breac# of

trust or ot#er e=uitable obliation''.

163 Accordin to -infield0 + '' Tortious liability arises fro% t#e breac# of duty !ri%arily affied

by law. T#e duty is towards !ersons in eneral and its breac# is redressable by an action for

unli=uidated da%aes''.

1>3 Accordin to (raser0 + '' Tort in an infrine%ent of a ri#t in re% of a !rivate

individual ivin a ri#t of co%!ensation at t#e suit of t#e injured !arty''.

T#us* it can be seen t#at tort is an act w#ile t#e law of tort is t#e branc# of law t#at

!rovides relief to t#e !erson w#o #as been injured due to a tortious act.

(ro% t#e above definitions* it is clear t#at t#e nature of a tort is t#at it is a civil wron.

&owever* not all civil wrons are torts. (or ea%!le* breac# of contract and breac# or

trust are civil wrons but are not torts because t#eir re%edies eist in t#e contract itself.

To deter%ine if a !articular act is a tort or not* we %ust first %ae sure t#at it is a civil

wron. -e s#ould t#en %ae sure t#at it is not a breac# of contract or breac# of trust.

(Please give the pigeon hole theory also which is given by salmond

N!T"#E OF TO#T:-

&istorically* cri%e and tort oriinated fro% t#e sa%e root. Later on* t#ey se!arated on

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

3/34

t#e account t#at a cri%e does not only affect t#e victi% but also to t#e society as a

w#ole to a reat etent. T#us* t#e branc# of law t#at deals wit# cri%inal conduct

evolved a lot faster t#an t#e branc# of law t#at deals wit# torts.

T#e nature of tort can be understood by distinuis#in it fro% cri%e and contractual civil

liabilities. )t can be said t#at tort is t#e residual of wronful acts t#at are not cri%e and t#at do

not fall under contractual liabilities. T#us* if a wronful act is neit#er cri%e nor a violation of a

contract* it %ay fall under tort. T#e da%aes are unli=uidated and are decided only by t#e

co%%on sense of t#e courts. T#e followin differences between Tort and $ri%e and Tort and

reac# of $ontract* s#ows t#e true nature of Tort.

Distinction between Tort and reac# of $ontract0+

reac# of $ontract

ac# of contract occurs due to a

f a duty 1ri#t in !ersona3 areed

t#e !arties t#e%selves.

% is co%!ensated as !er t#e ter%s of

act and da%aes are usually

d.

owards eac# ot#er is affied by t#e

areed to by t#e !arties.

#e !arties wit#in t#e !rivity of

can initiate t#e suit.

a contract is void* t#ere is no

of co%!ensation. (or ea%!le* a

wit# a %inor is void ab initio and so

cannot be #eld liable for anyt#in.

e is %et only by co%!ensatin t#e

r actual loss.

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

4/34

)n t#e case of Dona#ue vs tevenson 2C>6* A !urc#ased iner

beer in a restaurant for #is wo%an friend. #e dran a !art of it and !oured

t#e rest into a lass. T#ereby* s#e saw a dead snail in t#e drin. #e sued t#e

%anufacturer. )t was #eld t#at t#e %anufacturer #ad a duty towards t#e !ublic

in eneral for %ain sure t#ere are no noious t#ins in t#e drin even

t#ou# t#ere was no contract between t#e !urc#aser and t#e %anufacturer.

T#e sa%e !rinci!al was a!!lied in t#e case of laus ittelbac#ert

vs East )ndia &otels Ltd A)R 2CCF. )n t#is case* Luft#ansa Airlines #ad a

contract wit# &otel Oberoi )ntercontinental for t#e stay of its crew. One of t#e

co+!ilots was stayin t#ere too a dive in t#e !ool. T#e !ool desin was

defective and t#e !erson's #ead #it t#e botto%. &e was !araly/ed and died

after 2> yrs. T#e defendants !leaded t#at #e was a straner to t#e contract. )t

was #eld t#at #e could sue even for t#e breac# of contract as #e was t#e

beneficiary of t#e contract. &e could also sue in torts w#ere !lea of straner

to contract is irrelevant. T#e #otel was #eld liable for co%!ensation even

t#ou# t#ere was no contract between t#e !erson and t#e #otel and t#e #otel

was %ade to !ay 9Lacs as ee%!lary da%aes.

Distinction between Tort and $ri%e0+

Tort $ri%e

Tort occurs w#en t#e ri#t available to all t#e !ersons in

eral 1ri#t in re%3 is violated wit#out t#e eistence of

contract.

123Tort occurs w#en t#e ri#t available to all

t#e !ersons in eneral 1ri#t in re%3 is violated

and it also seriously affects t#e society.

Act is co%!aratively less serious and affects only t#e

son.

163Act is co%!aratively %ore serious and

affects t#e !erson as well as t#e society.

nention is usually irrelevant. 1>3)ntention is t#e %ost i%!ortant ele%ent

in establis#in cri%inal liability. A cri%e

cannot #a!!en wit#out ens Rea.

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

5/34

t is a !rivate wron. 1:3)t is a !ublic wron.

ince it is a !rivate wron t#e wroned individual %ust

a suit #i%self for da%aes.

13ince it is a !ublic wron* t#e suit is filed

by t#e ovt.

T#e suit is for da%aes. 183T#e suit is for !unis#%ent.

$o%!ro%ise is !ossible between t#e !arties. (or

%!le* a !erson w#o #as been defa%ed* can co%!ro%ise

# t#e defa%er for a certain su% of %oney.

1F3T#ere is no co%!ro%ise for t#e !unis#%ent.

(or ea%!le* if a !erson is uilty of %urder* #e

cannot !ay %oney and reduce #is sentence.

$o%!oundin is !ossible. 173$o%!oundin is enerally not !ossible.

ustice is %et by co%!ensatin t#e victi% for #is injury

ee%!lary da%aes %ay also be awarded to t#e victi%.

#i% in# vs tate of B A)R 2C78 + t#e !laintiff was

arded ee%!lary da%aes for violation of #is ri#ts

en by art 62.

1C3Bustice is %et by !unis#in t#e aressor by

!rison or fine. )n so%e s!ecific cases as iven

in )4$ co%!ensation %ay be iven to t#e

victi%.

3Tortious acts are usually not cri%inal acts.1293everal cri%inal acts suc# as assault and

battery are also rounds for tortious suit.

Q. -#at are its various inredients? -#at conditions %ust be satisfied before a liability in

Tort arises?

)nredients of Tort0 1General $onditions t#at %ust be satisfied before a liability in Tort

arises.3

T#ere are t#ree essential ele%ents for an act to be liable under Tort0+

23 -ronful act or o%ission563 Duty i%!osed by law5

>3 Leal re%edy.

2. -ronful act or o%ission + T#ere %ust be so%e act or o%ission of a duty on t#e !art of t#e

defendant. (or a tort to #a!!en* t#e !erson %ust #ave first eit#er done so%et#in t#at #e was

not e!ected to do or o%itted to do so%et#in t#at #e was su!!osed to do.

unici!al $or! of Del#i vs ub#avanti A)R 2C88 + A cloc tower was not in ood re!airs. )t

fell and illed several !eo!le. $D was #eld liable for its o%ission.

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

6/34

6. Duty i%!osed by law + T#e act or o%ission of an action %ust be re=uired by law or t#e duty

%ust be i%!osed by law. T#is %eans t#at if an act t#at is !ro#ibited by law causes #ar%* it is

liable under tort. i%ilarly* if t#e o%ission of an act t#at is re=uired by law* causes #ar%* t#enit is liable under tort. (or ea%!le* law re=uires t#at t#e driver of a ve#icle %ust drive

carefully and if drivin wit#out care* a !edestrian is #it* t#e o%ission of t#e act of drivin

carefuly is liable under tort. &owever* if t#e wors#i!ers sto! oin to a te%!le and t#ereby

cause t#e !riest to lose %oney* t#is action is not liable under tort because oin to te%!le is not

an act t#at is re=uired by law. uc# duties t#at are re=uired by law are usually towards all t#e

!eo!le in eneral.

Dona#ue vs tevenson 2C>6+ &eld t#at t#e %anufacturer of a drin #as a leal duty towards

t#e consu%ers to ensure t#at noious substances are not included in t#e drin.

>. )njury + T#e act or t#e o%ission %ust result in leal da%ae or injury i.e. violation of a leal

ri#t vested in t#e !laintiff. T#is %eans t#at t#e act or o%ission %ust cause a da%ae t#at is

reconi/ed by law as wronful. (or ea%!le* a !erson #as a leal ri#t to enjoy #is !ro!erty

and if so%eone t#rows tras# in it* t#is is a violation of #is leal ri#t and is liable under tort.

&owever* it is !ossible t#at a leal ri#t is violated wit#out causin any !#ysical or real

da%ae. T#is is e!lained in t#e %ai% + )njuria ine Da%nu%.

1very i%!ortant3 );B,R)A );E DA;,0 + if t#e !laintiff suffers injury to #is leal ri#t*

#e will #ave a cause of action to sue t#e defendant even t#ou# #e #as not suffered any loss or

da%ae.

T#e ter% 'injuria' %eans infrine%ent or violation of a leal ri#t.

T#e ter% 'sine' %eans wit#out or in t#e absence of.

T#e ter% 'da%nu%' %eans da%ae !#ysical* %ental or ot#erwise.

T#us* t#e above !#rase ' )njuria sine da%no' %eans '' infrine%ent of leal ri#t wit#out

da%ae''. )n ot#er words* !laintiff's leal ri#t is affected* but #e #as not suffered any loss or

da%ae. )n suc# a case* t#e suit is %aintainable even t#ou# t#e !laintiff suffers no da%ae

As#by vs -#ite 2F9> + T#e defendant wronfully !revented t#e !laintiff fro% votin. Even

t#ou# t#ere was no da%ae* t#e defendant was #eld liable.

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

7/34

#i% in# vs tate of B A)R 2C78 + 4laintiff was an LA and was wronfully arrested

w#ile oin to asse%bly session. &e was not !roduced before a %aistrate wit#in t#e re=uisite

!eriod. )t was #eld t#at t#is was t#e violation of #is funda%ental ri#ts. Even t#ou# #e wasrelease later* #e was awarded 9*999R as ee%!lary da%aes by $.

On t#e ot#er #and* it is !ossible t#at a !erson suffers a #ue loss or da%ae but none of #is

leal ri#ts are violated. T#is is called Da%nu% sine )njuria. )n suc# cases* t#ere is no tortious

act.

DA;, );E );B,R)A0+ in t#is case* t#e !laintiff suffers loss or da%ae wit#out any

injury to #is leel ri#t. &ence* t#e !laintiff's suit is not actionable.

T#e ter% 'da%nu%' %eans da%ae !#ysical* %ental or ot#erwise.

T#e ter% 'sine' %eans wit#out or in t#e absence of.

T#e ter% 'injuria' %eans infrine%ent or violation of a leal ri#t.

T#us*t#e above !#rase 'Da%nu% sine injuria' %eans ''Da%ae wit#out t#e infrine%ent ofleal ri#t''. An act t#at co%es wit#in t#e %eanin of t#is %ai% is not rearded as a 'tort' and

t#e suit is not %aintainable.

Glaucester Gra%%ar c#ool's case 2:29 + Defendant o!ened a rival ra%%ar sc#ool in front

of an eistin one t#ereby causin t#e fees of t#e eistin one to be reduced fro% :9!ence to

26 !ence. &e was not #eld liable as #e did not violate any leal ri#t of t#e !laintiff.

,s#aben vs #ayaLa%i$#itraandir A)R 2CF7+ 4laintiff sou#t a !er%anent injunction

aainst t#e cine%a #ouse to restrain t#e% fro% s#owin t#e %ovie Bai antos#iaa. )t was

contended t#at t#e %ovie de!icts t#e oddesses La%i* araswati* and 4arvati in bad li#t*

w#ic# is offensive to t#e !laintiff. )t was #eld t#at #urt to reliious senti%ents is not

reconi/ed as a leal wron. ince t#ere was no violation of a leal ri#t* an injunction was

not ranted.

$#es%ore vs Ric#ards 27FC + 4laintiff #ad been drawin water fro% underround for !ast 89

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

8/34

yrs. T#e defendant sun a bore well on #is land and drew #ue =uantity of water w#ic#

di%inis#ed t#e water su!!ly of t#e !laintiff. )t was #eld t#at t#e defendant was not liable

because #e was only eercisin #is ri#t and did not violate any ri#t of t#e !laintiff.

&ar% due to nelience + A !erson is not liable in tort even if #e causes #ar% due to

nelience but does not cause injury. )n Dicson vs Reuter's Telera% $o 27FF* t#e defendant

co%!any delivered a telera% t#at was not %eant for t#e !laintiff to t#e !laintiff. ased on t#e

telera%* t#e !laintiff su!!lied so%e order w#ic# was not acce!ted by t#e sender of t#e

telera%. 4laintiff suffered #eavy losses and sued t#e defendant co%!any. )t was #eld t#at t#e

co%!any owed a contractual duty only to t#e sender of t#e telera% and not to t#e receiver.

&ence t#ey were not liable.

&ar% due to %alice + )f a !erson #as not caused an injury even if #e does an act wit# %alice*

#e is not liable. )n radford $or!oration 1%ayor of3 vs 4icles 27C* t#e defendants sun a

s#aft in t#eir own land w#ic# caused t#e water to beco%e discoloured and unsuitable for t#e

!laintiff. )t was #eld t#at even if t#e defendant did it wit# %alice* #e #ad not violated any ri#t

of t#e !laintiff and #ence was not liable.

:. Leal Re%edy + &istorically* a !erson w#ose leal ri#t was violated was allowed to sue

only u!on a !er%ission fro% t#e in. T#ere were only certain !redefined torts for w#ic# t#e

in's !er%ission could be obtained. T#us* it was necessary to #ave leal re%edy for t#at

!articular violation before an action for da%aes could be started.

&owever* now* suc# a re=uire%ent is not t#ere. )t #as been acce!ted t#at t#ere can be %any

inds of torts and if a violation of a leal ri#t #as #a!!ened* t#e !erson is enttitled to sue.

inds of Torts

As %entioned before t#ere can be innu%erable ty!e of acts t#at violate t#e leal ri#t of

ot#ers. T#e law of tort is t#erefore ever evolvin. ;ew ways in w#ic# t#e ri#ts are violated

co%e to li#t everyday. &owever* t#ey can be classified on t#e basis of way of incurr%ent of

liability into t#e followin t#ree cateories +

2.)ntentional + -ronful acts t#at are done intentionally* irres!ective of wit# or wit#out

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

9/34

%alice* belon to t#is cateory. (or ea%!le* torts suc# as assault* battery* tres!ass to land*

false i%!rison%ent are intentional torts.

6.;elient $onduct + -ronful acts t#at are done wit#out any intention but because of

not tain !ro!er care t#at is re=uired by law fall into t#is cateory.

>.trict Liability + Acts t#at are neit#er done intentionally nor do involve any nelience*

but still cause an injury to ot#er are liable under t#e conce!t of strict liability as

!ro!ounded inRylands vs (letc#er. )n strict liability cases* t#e defendant is liable even if it

acted reasonably. T#ere are > ty!es of strict liability cases0

2+ ee!in wild ani%als

6+ danerous* leal activities suc# as blastin roads

>+ t#e %anufacture of !roducts 1!roducts liability3

Torts can also be classified accordin to t#e ty!e of da%ae +

:.4#ysical Torts + $ausin !#ysical #urt to body suc# as assault* battery. )t can #a!!en

wit# intention or even wit# nelience.

.Abstract Torts + $ausin da%ae to %ind or re!utation suc# as defa%ation.

8.Tort involvin !ro!erty + (or ea%!le* Tres!ass to land.

F.Tort involvin leal ri#t + (or ea%!le* false i%!rison%ent.

7.;uisance + $ausin unreasonable restriction towards eercise of one's leal ri#t.

Q. Describe eneral ece!tions reardin Torts t#at are not actionable < General

Defences for Torts.

Or

1o%eti%e defences can be co%e in t#e s#ort =uestion for% also3

Even w#en a !laintiff !rovides !roof for t#e eistence of all t#e essential ele%ents of a

tort* it is !ossible in so%e cases for t#e defendant to tae certain defences w#ic# can

re%ove #is liability* T#ese defences are not#in but s!ecific situations or circu%stances

in w#ic# a defendant is iven a waiver for #is tortious action. T#ese are as follows +

2. @olenti ;on fit )njuria 1i%!ortant3

-#en a !erson consents for infliction of an #ar% u!on #i%self* #e #as no re%edy for

t#at in Tort. T#at %eans* if a !erson #as consented to do so%et#in or #as iven

!er%ission to anot#er to do certain t#in* and if #e is injured because of t#at* #e cannot

clai% da%aes. (or ea%!le* A !urc#ases ticets for a $ar race and w#ile watc#in t#e

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

10/34

race* an collision of cars #a!!ens and t#e !erson is injured. &ere* by areein to watc#

t#e race* w#ic# is a risy s!ort* it is assu%ed t#at #e voluntarily too on t#e ris of

bein #urt in an accident. T#us* #e cannot clai% co%!ensation for t#e injury.

uc# consent %ay be i%!lied or e!ress. (or ea%!le* a !erson !racticin t#e s!ort of

(encin wit# anot#er* i%!liedly consents to t#e injury t#at %i#t #a!!en w#ile !layin.

)n -oolride vs u%ner 2C8>* t#e !laintiff a !#otora!#er was tain !#otora!#s at a

#orse s#ow* durin w#ic# one #orse rounded t#e bend too fast. As t#e #orse allo!ed

furiously* t#e !laintiff was fri#tened and #e fell in t#e course. &e was seriously

injured. )t was #eld t#at t#e defendants #ad taen !ro!er care in closin t#e course and

t#e !laintiff* by bein in t#e s#ow* areed to tae t#e ris of suc# an accident. T#e

defendants were not #eld liable.

&owever* t#e action causin #ar% %ust not o beyond t#e li%it of w#at #as beenconsented. (or ea%!le* in a s!ort of fencin* a !erson consents to an injruy t#at

#a!!ens w#ile !layin by t#e rules. )f #e is injured due to an action t#at violates t#e

rules* #e can clai% co%!ensation because #e never consented to an injury w#ile !layin

wit#out rules.

)n La%iRajan vs alar &os!ital 2CC7* a wo%an consented for a surery to re%ove a

lu%! fro% #er breast. ut t#e #os!ital re%oved #er uterus as well wit#out any enuine

reason. )t was #eld t#at re%ovin of #er uterus eceed beyond w#at s#e #ad consented

for.

Also* t#e consent %ust be free. )t %ust not be because of any co%!ulsion. T#us* if a

servant was co%!elled by t#e %aster to do a certain tas des!ite #is !rotests* and if #e is

injured w#ile doin it* t#e %aster cannot tae t#e defence of volenti non fit injuria

because t#e consent was not free.

Ece!tions + )n t#e followin conditions* t#is defence cannot be taen even if t#e

!laintiff #as consented +

2. Rescue $onditions + -#en t#e !laintiff suffers injury w#ile savin so%eone. (or

ea%!le* A's #orse is out of control and is allo!in towards a busy street. reali/est#at if t#e #orse reac#es t#e street it will #urt %any !eo!le and so #e bravely oes

and control's t#e #orse. &e is injured in doin so and sue's A. &ere A cannot tae t#e

defence t#at did t#at act u!on #is own consent. )t is considered as a just action in

!ublic interest and t#e society s#ould reward it instead of !reventin #i% fro%

ettin co%!ensation.

6. ,nfair $ontract Ter%s + -#ere t#e ter%s of a contract are unfair* t#e defendant

cannot tae t#is defence. (or ea%!le* even if a laundry* by contract* absolves itself

of all liability for da%ae to clot#es* a !erson can clai% co%!ensation because t#e

contract is unfair to t#e consu%ers.

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

11/34

6. 4laintiff t#e wrondoer

A !erson cannot tae advantae of #is own wron. T#is !rinci!le #as been in use since

a lon ti%e as it is just and e=uitable. (or ea%!le* a !erson tres!assin one anot#er's

!ro!erty is injured due to darness. &e cannot clai% co%!ensation because #e was

injured due to an action w#ic# was wron on #is !art. &owever* t#is defence eists onlyif t#e injury #a!!ens because of a wronful act of t#e !laintiff. )t does not eist if t#e

injury #a!!ens because of a wronful act of t#e defendant even if t#e !laintiff was

doin a wronful but unrelated act. (or ea%!le* in ird vs &olbroo 2767* t#e !laintiff

was tres!assin on t#e defendant's !ro!erty and #e was #urt due to a s!rinun. T#e

defendant #ad !ut s!rin uns wit#out any notice and was t#us #eld liable.

>. )nevitable Accident

Accident %eans an une!ected occurance of so%et#in t#at could not #ave been

!redicted or !revented. )n suc# a case* t#e defendants will not be liable if t#ey #ad nointention to cause it and if t#e !laintiff is injured because of it. (or ea%!le* in tanley

vs 4owell 27C2* t#e !laintiff and t#e defendant were %e%bers of a s#ootin !arty. T#e

defendant s#ot a bird but t#e bulled ricoc#eted off a tree and #it t#e !laintiff. T#e

defendant was not #eld liable because it was an accident and t#e defendant did not

intent it and could neit#er #ave !revented it.

&owever* t#e defence of )nevitable Accident is not a license to nelience. (or

ea%!le* A #as #ired 's car. -#ile drivin* one of t#e tires bursts and causes accident

injurin A. &ere* if t#e tires were worn out and were in bad condition* it would be

nelience of and #e would be #eld liable for A's injuries.

:. Act of God 1vis %ajor3

An act of God in a leal sense is an etraordinary occurance of circu%stance w#ic#

could not #ave been !redicted or !revented and #a!!ens because of natural causes.

;obody can !redict* !revent* or !rotect fro% a natural disaster suc# an an eart#=uae or

flood. T#us* it is unreasonable to e!ect a !erson to be liable for da%aes caused by

suc# acts of God. T#ere are two essential condtions for t#is defence + t#e event %ust be

due to a natural cause and it %ust be etraordinary or so%e t#in t#at could not #ave

been antici!ated or e!ected. (or ea%!le* #eavy rains in t#e %onsoon are e!ectedand if a wall falls and injures so%eone* it cannot be ter%ed an act of od because

!rotection for suc# e!ected conditions s#ould #ave been taen. ut if a buildin falls

due to a %assive ear#=uae and injures and ills !eo!le* t#is defence can be used.

)n Ra%alina ;adar vs ;arayan Reddiar A)R 2CF2* it was #eld t#at cri%inal activities

of an unruly %ob is not an act of God.

. 4rivate Defence

As !er section C8 of )4$* not#in is an offence t#at is done in eercise of t#e ri#t of

!rivate defence. T#us* law !er%its t#e use of reasonable and necessary force in!reventin #ar% to #u%an body or !ro!erty and injuries caused by t#e use of suc# force

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

12/34

are not actionable. &owever* t#e force %ust be reasonable and not ecessive. )n ird vs

&ollbroo 27C6* t#e defendant used s!rin uns in #is !ro!erty wit#out notice. )t was

#eld t#at #e used ecessive force and so was liable for !laintiff's injury even t#ou# t#e

!laintiff was tres!assin on #is !ro!erty.

8. istae

Generally* %istae is not a valid defence aainst an action of tort. T#us* #urtin a

!erson under t#e %istaen belief t#at #e is tres!assin on your !ro!erty* will not be

defensible. &owever* in certain cases* it could be a valid defence. (or ea%!le* in t#e

case of %alicious !rosecution* it is necessary to !rove t#at t#e defendant acted

%aliciously and wit#out a reasonable cause. )f t#e !rosecution was done only by

%istae* it is not actionable.

(urt#er* #onest belief in t#e trut# of a state%ent is a defence aainst an action for deceit.

F. ;ecessity

)f t#e act causin da%ae is done to !revent a reater #ar%* it is ecusable. (or

ea%!le* a #i! ran over a s%all boat #urtin 6 !eo!le in order to !revent collision wit#

anot#er s#i! w#ic# would #ave #urt #undreds of !eo!le is ecusable. T#us* in Lei# vs.

Gladstone 2C9C* force feedin of a #uner striin !risoner to save #er was #eld to be a

ood defence to an action for battery.

7. tatutory Aut#ority

An act t#at is a!!roved by t#e leislature or is done u!on t#e direction of t#e leislature

is ecused fro% tortious liability even t#ou# in a nor%al circu%stances* it would #ave

been a tort. -#en an act is done under t#e aut#ority of an Act* it is a co%!lete defence

and t#e injured !arty #as no re%edy ece!t t#at is !rescribed by t#e statute.

)n @au#an vs Taff @alde Rail $o 2789* s!ars fro% an enine caused fire in a!!ellant's

woods t#at eisted in #is land adjoinin t#e railway trac. )t was #eld t#at since t#e

co%!any was aut#ori/ed to run t#e railway and since t#e co%!any #ad taen !ro!er

care in runnin t#e railway* it was not liable for t#e da%aes

Q. -#at are t#e torts relatin to t#e absolute liability? -#at are its inds? -#at isRyland vs (letc#er rul 1strict liability3? -#at are its ece!tions? )s t#is rule a!!lied in

)ndia in !resent circu%stances? )f not* w#y? 1very i%!ortant 3

)n certain situations* a !erson is #eld liable for t#e da%aes caused by #is actions even

w#en t#e actions are done wit#out any ill intention or nelience on account of e=uity

and justice. (or ea%!le* if a !erson ee!s a lion for a !et and des!ite of all t#e

!recautions t#e lion esca!es t#e cae and ills so%eone. )n t#is case* t#e owner of t#e

lion will be liable even t#ou# #e #ad no ill intention to cause deat# and #ad taen all

t#e !recautions to ee! t#e lion in t#e cae. T#is see%s just because t#e da%ae

#a!!ened only because #e brou#t a danerous t#in on #is !ro!erty. &e was also

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

13/34

aware of t#e conse=uences if t#e lion esca!es t#e cae and so #e s#ould be %ade liable

if it esca!es and causes da%ae.

T#is !rinci!le of #oldin a !erson liable for #is actions wit#out any ind of wron

doin on #is !art is called t#e !rinci!le of absolute liability or no fault liability. T#is!rinci!le was first u!#eld in t#e case of Ryland vs (letc#er by t#e !rivy council in

2787. &owever* later on so%e ece!tions to t#is were also establis#ed due to w#ic#

"strict liability" is considered a %ore a!!ro!riate na%e for t#is !rinci!le. )n t#is case*

t#e defendant #ired contractors to build a reservoir over #is land for !rovidin water to

#is %ill. -#ile diin* t#e contractors failed to observe so%e old disused s#afts under

t#e site of t#e reservoir t#at lead to !laintiff's %ine on t#e adjoinin land. -#en water

was filled in t#e reservoir* t#e water flooded t#e %ine t#rou# t#e s#afts. T#e !laintiff

sued t#e defendant. T#e defendant !leaded t#at t#ere was no intention and since #e didnot now about t#e s#afts* #e was not nelient even t#ou# t#e contractors were. Even

so* #e was #eld liable. B lacburn observed t#at w#en a !erson* for #is own !ur!oses*

brins to #is !ro!erty anyt#in t#at is liely to cause a %isc#ief if it esca!es* %ust ee!

it at #is !eril and if it esca!es and causes da%ae* #e %ust be #eld liable. &e can tae

t#e defence t#at t#e t#in esca!ed due to an act of t#e !laintiff or due to vis %ajor 1act

of God3 but since not#in of t#at sort #a!!ened #ere* t#en it is unnecessary to in=uire

w#at ecuse would be sufficient.

To t#is rule !ro%ulated by B lacburn* anot#er re=uire%ent was added by t#e $ourt

of Ec#e=uer $#a%ber* t#at t#e use %ust be a non+natural use of land as was t#e case in

Ryland vs (letc#er itself. (or ea%!le* rowin of reular trees is a natural use but

rowin !oisonous trees is not. ee!in dos as !et is a natural use but ee!in wild

beasts is not. T#us* t#e conditions w#en t#is rule will a!!ly are H

1. T#e t#in e!t %ust be danerous + T#e t#in e!t on t#e land %ust be as suc# as is

liely to cause %isc#ief if it esca!es. (or ea%!le* storin as or e!losives or wildbeasts are all liely to cause da%ae if t#ey esca!e.

6. T#e t#in %ust esca!e + )f t#e t#in is wit#in t#e boundary of t#e defendant's land*

#e is not liable. T#e t#in %ust esca!e out of #is land for #i% to be liable. )n

$row#urst vs A%ers#a% urial oard 27F7* branc#es of a !oisonous tree were

#anin outside t#e land of t#e defendant. 4laintiff's cattle ate t#e% and died.

Defendant was #eld liable because !rotrusion of branc#es out side #is !ro!erty wereconsidered as esca!in fro% #is !ro!erty. &owever* in 4ontin vs ;oaes 2CC:*

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

14/34

w#en t#e !laintiff's #orse intruded over #is boundary and ate !oisonous leaves of t#e

defendant's tree* #e was not #eld liable because t#ere was no esca!e.

T#e t#in %ust be a non natural use of land + T#e use %ust not be an ordinary use of t#e

land. T#ere %ust be a s!ecial !ur!ose because of w#ic# it brins additional danerto ot#er. )n ;oble vs &arrison 2C68* a branc# of a tree rowin on defendant's land

broe and fell on !laintiff's ve#icle. )t was #eld t#at rowin reular trees is not a

non natural use of land and t#e branc# fell because of an in#erent !roble% and not

because of any nelience of t#e defendant and so #e was not liable.As %entioned

before t#e followin are ece!tions or defenses aainst t#is rule +

3. 4laintiff's own default + )f t#e t#in esca!es due to !laintiff's fault t#e defendant

cannot be #eld liable. )n Eastern and out# African Telera!# $o. Ltd. v $a!etownTra%way $o 2C96.t#e !laintiff's sub%arine cable trans%issions were disturbed by

esca!e of electric current fro% defendant's tra%way. )t was #eld t#at since t#e

current was not causin any !roble% to reular users and it was causin !roble% to

t#e cables only because t#ey were too sensitive and so t#e defendant cannot be #eld

liable. One cannot increase #is nei#bor's liabilities by !uttin #is land to s!ecial

uses.

EI$E4T)O;

a. Act of God + )n circu%stances w#ere no #u%an #as control over* no one can be

#eld liable. )n ;ic#ols vs arsland 27F8*t#e defendant created artificial laes to

store rainwater. )n t#at !articular year* t#ere were ece!tionally #eavy rains*

w#ic# caused t#e e%ban%ents to brea causin floods* w#ic# broe defendant's

brides. )t was #eld t#at since t#ere was no nelience on t#e !art of t#e

defendant and t#e flood #a!!ened only because of rains so #eavy t#at nobody

could i%aine* t#e defendant was not liable.

b.$onsent of t#e !laintiff + )f t#e !laintiff #as consented for t#e accu%ulation of t#e

danerous t#in* #e cannot #old t#e defendant liable. T#is is also t#e case w#en an

activity is done for %utual benefit. (or ea%!le* A lives on t#e round floor and t#e

defendant lives on t#e floor above A's. ;ow* a water tan is built by t#e defendant to

su!!ly water for bot# of t#e%. T#e defendant will not be #eld liable for leaae of

water fro% t#e tan.

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

15/34

c.Act of t#ird !arty + -#en a t#ird !arty* w#o is not an e%!loyee or a servant or a

contractor of t#e defendant is res!onsible for causin t#e danerous t#in to esca!e*

t#e defendant will not be #eld liable for t#e da%ae. )n o vs Bubb 27FC* t#e

overflow fro% t#e defendant's reservoir was caused by t#e blocin of a drain byso%e straners. T#e defendant was #eld not liable. &owever* if suc# act can be

foreseen* t#is defenses cannot be !leaded because t#e defendant %ust tae

!recautions to !revent suc# an act.

)n .4. Electricity oard vs #ail u%ar A)R 6996* a !erson was illed by a live

electric wire lyin on t#e road. $ a!!lied t#e rule of strict liability and #eld t#at t#e

defense of act of straner is not a!!licable because sna!!in of wire can be

antici!ated and t#e Electricity oard s#ould #ave cut off t#e current as soon as t#e

wire sna!!ed.

d.tatutory Aut#ority + -#en an act is a!!roved by t#e leislature or is done on t#e

direction of t#e leislature* it is a valid defence for an action of tort even w#en t#e

rules of Ryland vs (letc#er a!!ly. &owever* it is not a!!lication w#en t#ere is

nelience.

4osition in )ndiaT#e !rinci!le of strict liability is a!!licable in )ndia as well. (or ea%!le* otor

@e#icles Act 2C>7* reconi/es no fault liability. i%ilarly* t#e liability of a !ublic

carrier suc# as railways #as also been increased fro% t#at of a bailee to an insurer.

&owever* t#ere #as been a deviation in t#e sco!e of t#is rule. De!endin on t#e

situation* its sco!e #as been increased as well as decreased by t#e courts. (or ea%!le*

in adras Railway $o. vs Ja%indar 2CF:* t#e water collected in a !ond for

aricultural !ur!oses esca!ed and caused da%ae to t#e railway trac and brides.

&ere* t#e a!!lication of t#is rule was restricted because t#e collection of water in suc# away is a necessity in )ndian conditions and so it is a natural use of t#e land. T#is

%ec#anis% to store rainwater is used t#rou#out t#e country and since aes. T#erefore*

t#e defendant was not #eld liable.

!$%O&"TE &I!$I&IT':

A land%ar case in t#is res!ect was t#e case of $ e#ta vs ,nion of )ndia A)R

2C7F. )n t#is case* oleu% as fro% a fertili/er !lant of #rira% (oods and (ertili/ers

leaed and caused da%ae to several !eo!le and even illed one advocate. )n t#is case*

t#e rule of Ryland vs (letc#er was a!!lied. &owever* t#e co%!any !leaded sabotae as

a defence. $ went one ste! furt#er and !ro%ulated t#e rule of Absolute Liability. )t

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

16/34

observed t#at t#e rule of Ryland vs (letc#er was a century old and was not sufficient to

decide cases as science #as advanced a lot in t#ese year. )f ritis# laws #aven't

!roressed* )ndian courts are not bound to follow t#eir law and can evolve t#e laws as

!er t#e re=uire%ents of t#e society. )t #eld t#at an enter!rise t#at enaes in danerous

substances #as an absolute res!onsibility to ensure t#e safety of t#e co%%on !ublic. )t

is only t#e co%!any t#at can now t#e conse=uences of its activities and so it %ust tae

all t#e ste!s to !revent any accident. )f* even after all !recautions* accident #a!!ens* t#e

co%!any still s#ould be %ade absolutely liable for t#e da%aes. T#e reason bein t#at

t#e co%!any #as a social obliation to co%!ensate t#e !eo!le w#o suffered fro% its

activity. $ also laid down t#at t#e %easure of co%!ensation s#ould de!end on t#e

%anitude and ca!acity of t#e enter!rise so t#at it can #ave a deterrent effect.

Please prepare the above topics in detail this part is very important

Q. &ow can liability in Torts be disc#ared?

.

T#e followin are t#e %odes t#rou# w#ic# liability in Torts can be disc#ared +

2. Deat# of a !arty + "Actio!ersonalis%aritur cu% !ersona" %eans 4ersonal actions of

a !erson die wit# t#e !erson. ut not always. )n several cases* t#e cause of action

re%ains valid even after deat# of wrondoer. (or ea%!le* -orers' $o%!ensation

Act* (atal Accidents Act* etc.:. Ac=uiescence + )f t#e !arty w#ose ri#t is bein violated does not !rotest and allows

t#e transression to #a!!en wit#out any restriction.

. -aiver + )f t#e !laintiff starts !roceedins for one re%edy for ea%!le* $ivil suit* #e

cannot file anot#er suit under anot#er re%edy suc# as Tortios uit for t#e sa%e

cause.

8. Release + )f t#e !laintiff voluntarily releases t#e wrondoer fro% liability. )n

Enland* consideration is %ust. )n )ndia* no consideration is re=uired.F. Accord and atisfaction + )f t#e !arties co%!ro%ise and settle t#e dis!ute.

7. Bude%ent Recovered + "res judicata" + u!on t#e da%aes awarded by t#e court.

C. tatute of li%itation + uit %ust be filed wit#in t#e ti%e fra%e !rovided by statutes

of li%itations.

Q. E!lain various Budicial re%edies t#at are available to a !laintiff in an action of tort.

Are t#ere any etra judicial re%edies too? )f so* enu%erate t#e%. -#at are t#e eneral

ty!es of da%aes available in cases of Torts? E!lain wit# ea%!les. -#at is t#e

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

17/34

doctrine of re%oteness of da%aes? Discuss law on t#is !oint.

Budicial Re%edies +

Da%aes + )t is t#e %ost i%!ortant re%edy of all.

;o%inal Da%aes + )n cases of )njuria ine Da%nu% 1As#by vs -#ite3

$onte%tuousDa%aes + -#en !laintiff #as suffered a wron but does not

deserve co%!ensation. (or ea%!le* if t#e reason for battery was !laintiff's

offensive re%ars* jude %ay t#in t#at t#e !laintiff does not deserve

co%!ensation.

$o%!ensatory* Aravated* and Ee%!lary Da%aes

4ros!ective Da%aes + $o%!ensation for da%aes t#at #aven't yet #a!!ened butare liely #a!!en because of defendant's tortious action.

)njunctions + An injunction is an order of t#e court directin t#e doin of so%e

act or restrainin t#e co%%ission or continuance of so%e act. T#e court #as t#e

discretion to rant or refuse t#is re%edy and w#en re%edy by way of da%aes is

a sufficient relief* injunction %ay not be ranted. )t includes te%!orary and

!er%anent injunction.

!ecific restitution of 4ro!erty

Etra Budicial Re%edies

esides oin to t#e court for justice* a !erson* in certain situations* can also #ave

recourse to re%edies wit#out oin to any court. uc# re%edies are called etra judicial

re%edies and are availed by a !erson by #is own strent# as self+#el!. T#ese are +

Re%oval of tres!asser + A !erson is entitled to re%ove t#e tres!asser by force.

Reca!tion of c#attels 1!ersonal belonins3 + A !erson is entitled to tae

!ossession of #is oods by force.

Abate%ent of nuisance + An occu!ier of a land is !er%itted to abate any

nuisance t#at is affectin #is land.

29. Distress Da%ae feasant + A !erson #as t#e ri#t to sei/e oods or cattle t#at #as

strayed on #is land until co%!ensation is !aid.

Re%oteness of Da%ae

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

18/34

T#e law allows only t#ose losses w#ic# are not too 're%ote'. T#ere are two %ain tests of

re%oteness w#ic# are a!!lied in tort* na%ely direct conse=uences and reasonably

foreseeable conse=uences.

Direct $onse=uence + 4rovided so%e da%ae is foreseeable* liability lies for all t#e

natural and direct conse=uences flowin fro% t#e breac# of duty. )n Re 4ole%is K2C62

> 89 1$A3* stevedores* w#o were servants of t#e defendant* neliently let fall a

!lan into a s#i!Ms #old containin !etrol in %etal containers. T#e i%!act of t#e !lan

as it #it t#e floor of t#e #old caused a s!ar* and !etrol va!our was inited. T#e s#i!

was destroyed. Arbitrators found t#at t#e s!ar could not #ave been reasonably

foreseen* t#ou# so%e da%ae was foreseeable fro% t#e i%!act. T#e defendant was

found liable because t#e clai%antMs loss was a direct* t#ou# not reasonably foreseeable*

result.

Reasonable (oreseeability + )n T#e -aon ound 1;o. 23 K2C82 A$ >77* t#e

defendant carelessly disc#ared oil fro% a s#i! in ydney &arbour* and t#e oil floated

on t#e surface of t#e water towards t#e clai%antMs

w#arf. T#e clai%antMs servants* w#o were weldin on t#e w#arf* continued t#eir wor

after bein advised 1non+neliently3 t#at it was safe to do so. !ars fro% t#e weldin

e=ui!%ent first of all inited cotton waste %ied u! in t#e oil5 t#en t#e oil itself cau#t

fire. T#e clai%ant sued for destruction of t#e w#arf by fire. T#e defendant was found

not liable in nelience* because it was not reasonably foreseeable t#at t#e oil %i#t

inite on water in t#ese circu%stances. Da%ae by foulin was foreseeable5 da%ae by

fire 1t#e case #ere3 was not foreseeable. T#e 4rivy $ouncil said t#at in t#e tort of

nelience Re 4ole%iswas no loner ood law* and liability

would lie only for foreseeable da%ae of t#e ind or ty!e in fact suffered by t#e

clai%ant.

&ORT Q,ET)O;

ontrib)tory Negligence

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

19/34

$ontributory nelience is nelient conduct by t#e injured !arty t#at is a contributin

cause of #er injuries* and t#at falls below t#e leal standard for !rotectin oneself fro%

an unreasonable ris of #ar%.

At co%%on law* t#e defense of contributory nelience was an absolute defense andserved as a co%!lete bar to recovery. ost jurisdictions today #ave ado!ted t#e doctrine

of co%!arative nelience* w#ereby t#e a%ount of t#e !laintiffMs award is reduced by

t#e etent to w#ic# !laintiffMs conduct contributed to t#e #ar%.

$ontributory nelience is a bar to recovery only w#en it is a !roi%ate cause of t#e

injury. )f t#e da%ae is not t#e necessary or ordinary or liely result of contributory

nelience* but is due to so%e ot#er unliely event w#ic# could not reasonably #ave

been antici!ated or rearded as liely to occur* t#e !laintiffMs nelience is too re%ote

to act as a bar to recovery.

%tandard o* are

T#e standard of care in contributory nelience is t#e sa%e as in ordinary nelience5

i.e.* t#at w#ic# a reasonable !erson would #ave done under t#e sa%e or si%ilar

circu%stances. T#e act or o%ission of an injured !arty w#ic# a%ounts to contributory

nelience %ust be a nelient act or o%ission* and it %ust serve as a !roi%ate cause

of t#e injury and not %erely as a condition. An act or o%ission t#at %erely increases or

adds to t#e etent of t#e loss or injury will enerally not !reclude recovery. )t %ay

#owever reduce t#e a%ount of da%aes.

)f a !laintiff voluntarily disreards warnins and assu%es t#e ris of certain daners*

but is injured t#rou# t#e nelience of t#e defendant fro% an entirely different source

of daner* of w#ic# s#e was not and could not #ave been aware* and of w#ose eistence

it was t#e duty of t#e defendant to warn* t#en t#e !laintiffMs failure to #eed t#e warnin

does not constitute contributory nelience.

Intentional Torts

T#e defense of contributory nelience enerally is not available for intentional torts orw#ere t#e defendant is found to be uilty of wanton and willful %isconduct. )t can also

be unavailable w#ere t#e defendant #as violated a statute clearly desined for t#e

!rotection of t#e !laintiff. $ontributory nelience is not a defense for strict liability

torts unless t#e !laintiff #as nowinly assu%ed an unreasonable ris.

#esc)e Doctrine

T#e %ajority rule is t#at if a !erson is injured w#ile atte%!tin to rescue anot#er !erson

or !ro!erty fro% daner* t#e rescuer is not contributorily nelient unless t#e conduct isrecless.

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

20/34

&eading ases

Alexander v. Kramer Bros. Freight Lines, Inc.H Aleander sued ra%er rot#ers after

#e suffered !ersonal injuries in an accident wit# t#e defendantMs truc and ra%er

rot#ers asserted contributory nelience as a defense. T#e court #eld t#at t#e !laintiff#as t#e burden of !roof to s#ow t#at #e or s#e was not contributory nelient.

Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. GoodmanH Good%an was struc and illed by a train w#ile

drivin over a railroad crossin. &is view was obstructed and #e did not et out to loo

for an a!!roac#in train. T#e court ordered a directed verdict t#at Good%an was

contributory nelient on t#e rounds t#at no reasonable jury could #ave found in favor

of t#e !laintiff under t#e facts of t#e case.

Brown v. KendallH endall injured rown w#ile tryin to se!arate t#eir dos and sto!

t#e% fro% fi#tin. rown was standin be#ind endall and #e was struc in t#e eyewit# a stic. T#e court #eld t#at t#e injured !arty cannot recover if bot# !arties were not

nelient* or if bot# !arties were nelient* or if t#e injured !arty was nelient but t#e

defendant was not.

Btter!ield v. ForresterH (orrester laid a !ole across a road. utterfield was ridin at

#i# s!eed at twili#t and did not see t#e !ole. &e #it t#e !ole and suffered !ersonal

injuries. T#e court #eld t#at utterfield was contributory nelient because if #e #ad

been usin ordinary care #e would #ave been able to see and avoid t#e obstruction.

"c#ert v. Long Island R. R. Co.H Ecert saw a boy sittin on railroad tracs. &e

succeeded in savin t#e boy but was struc and illed by t#e train. T#e court #eld t#at

w#en a rescuer atte%!ts to save so%eone in i%%inent !eril* #e %ay assu%e

etraordinary riss or !erfor% danerous acts wit#out bein contributory nelient.

$artin v. %erogH artin was illed in an accident w#ile drivin a buy wit#out

li#ts at ni#t. T#e defendant was drivin on t#e wron side of t#e road. T#e court #eld

t#at t#e violation of a statutory duty of care is nelience !er se and a jury %ay not

rela t#at duty. )n order for a !arty to be liable for nelient conduct* t#e conduct %ust

be t#e cause of t#e injury.

Ro'erts v. RingH Rin was FF years old and #ad i%!aired #earin and vision. -#ile

drivin on a busy street #e saw a seven year old boy run into #is !at# but failed to sto!

in ti%e to avoid #ittin #i%. T#e court #eld t#at w#ile t#e defendant cannot tae

advantae of i%!air%ents and infir%ities to avoid a findin of nelience* t#e injured

!arty is #eld to a standard t#at taes ae and %aturity into account.

(mithwic# v. %all & )*son Co.H %it#wic was told not to wor on a !latfor% but was

not told t#at t#e wall was about to colla!se. &e wored on !latfor% des!ite t#e warninbecause #e believed t#e ris of fallin was t#e only daner. T#e court #eld t#at t#e

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/alexander-kramer.htmlhttp://www.lawnix.com/cases/baltimore-ohiogoodman.htmlhttp://www.lawnix.com/cases/brown-kendall.htmlhttp://www.lawnix.com/cases/butterfield-forrester.htmlhttp://www.lawnix.com/cases/eckert-long-island.htmlhttp://www.lawnix.com/cases/martin-herzog.htmlhttp://www.lawnix.com/cases/roberts-ring.htmlhttp://www.lawnix.com/cases/smithwick-hall.htmlhttp://www.lawnix.com/cases/baltimore-ohiogoodman.htmlhttp://www.lawnix.com/cases/brown-kendall.htmlhttp://www.lawnix.com/cases/butterfield-forrester.htmlhttp://www.lawnix.com/cases/eckert-long-island.htmlhttp://www.lawnix.com/cases/martin-herzog.htmlhttp://www.lawnix.com/cases/roberts-ring.htmlhttp://www.lawnix.com/cases/smithwick-hall.htmlhttp://www.lawnix.com/cases/alexander-kramer.html

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

21/34

failure to #eed a warnin is not contributory nelience if t#e injury was t#e result of a

different source of ris caused by t#e defendant* and t#e injured !arty was unaware of

t#at ris.

(olomon v. (hellH 4lain clot#es !olice officers were arrestin robbery sus!ects. T#edecedent t#ou#t t#e sus!ects were bein attaced and was s#ot by one of t#e officers

w#en #e ca%e out of #is #ouse wit# a un. T#e court #eld t#at under t#e rescue

doctrine* contributory nelience is not !resent if t#e rescuer #ad a reasonable belief

t#at t#e victi% was in actual daner.

P#EP!#E T+I% ,"E%TION IN DET!I&

De*amation is injury to t#e re!utation of a !erson. )f a !erson injures t#e re!utation of

anot#er* #e does so at #is own ris* as in t#e case of an interference wit# t#e !ro!erty. A

%anMs re!utation is #is !ro!erty* and if !ossible* %ore valuable* t#an ot#er !ro!erty

1Dion v. &olden* 278C3.

s .// o* the Penal ode--#oever by words eit#er s!oen or by visible

re!resentations* %aes or !ublis#es any i%!utation concernin any !erson intendin to

#ar% t#e re!utation of #i%* ece!t in t#e cases #ereinafter ece!ted* to defa%e t#at

!erson.

Ten e0ceptions-

2. )%!utation of trut# w#ic# !ublic ood re=uires to be %ade or !ublis#ed+

6. 4ublic conduct of !ublic servants+

>. $onduct of any !erson touc#in any !ublic =uestion+

:. 4ublication of re!orts of !roceedins of $ourts+

. erits of case decided in $ourt or conduct of witnesses and ot#ers concerned+

8. erits of !ublic !erfor%ance+

F. $ensure !assed in ood fait# by !erson #avin lawful aut#ority over anot#er+

7. Accusation !referred in ood fait# to aut#ori/ed !erson+

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/solomon-shuell.htmlhttp://www.lawnix.com/cases/solomon-shuell.html

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

22/34

C. )%!ortation %ade in ood fait# by !erson for !rotection of #is or ot#erMs interests+

29. $aution intended for ood of !erson to w#o conveyed or for !ublic ood+

s 122- P)nishment *or de*amation-two years or fine or bot#.

s 123- Printing or engraving matter 4nown to be de*amatory--#oever !rints or

enraves any %atter* nowin t#at to be defa%atory of any !erson* s#all be !unis#ed

wit# two years or fine or bot#.

s 125- %ale o* printed or engraved s)bstance containing de*amatory matter-

-#oever sells or offers for sale any !rinted substance containin defa%atory %atter

nowinly* s#all be !unis#ed wit# two years or fine or bot#.

lassi*ication o* de*amation

Defa%ation is of two ty!es+ libel and slander. Distinction between t#e two is+

&ibel %lander

)t is written )t is oral

)t is !er%anent )t is te%!orary

)t is bot# tort and offence )t is only tort

)t is actionable !er se )t is not actionable !er se

)ntention is easier to !rove )ntention is not t#at easy to !rove.

Essential elements o* de*amation-

i3 T#e state%ent %ust be defa%atory

ii3 T#e said state%ent %ust refer to t#e !laintiff

iii3 T#e state%ent %ust be !ublis#ed

iv3 T#e state%ent %ust be !assed by t#e defendant

E0planation-

i The statement m)st be de*amatory-

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

23/34

Defa%atory state%ent is one w#ic# tends to injure t#e re!utation of t#e !laintiff.

-#et#er a state%ent is defa%atory or not de!ends u!on #ow t#e ri#t t#inin

%e%bers of t#e society are liely to tae it.

DP ho)dh)ry v 6an7)lata (3//8-T#ere was !ublication of a state%ent in a localdaily in Bod#!ur t#at anjulata went out of #er #ouse on t#e earlier ni#t at 22 !.%. on

t#e !retet of attendin ni#t classes and ran away wit# a boy na%ed a%les#. #e

beloned to a well educated fa%ily and was #erself also a student of .A class. #e was

2F years of ae. T#e news ite% was untrue and #ad been !ublis#ed wit# utter

irres!onsibility and wit#out any justification. uc# !ublication #ad resulted in #er bein

ridiculed and affected #er %arriae !ros!ects. T#e state%ent bein defa%atory* t#e

defendants were #eld liable.

The Inn)endo

A state%ent %ay !ri%a facie be innocent but because of so%e latent or secondary

%eanin* it %ay be considered to be defa%atory. -#en t#e natural and ordinary

%eanin is not defa%atory but t#e !laintiff wants to brin an action for defa%ation* #e

%ust !rove t#e latent or t#e secondary %eanin* i.e. innuendo.

Intention to de*ame is not necessary- -#en t#e words are considered to be

defa%atory by t#e !ersons to w#o% t#e state%ent is !ublis#ed* it is i%%aterial t#at t#e

defendants did not now of t#e facts* is considered to be defa%atory.

assidy v Daily 6irror Newspapers &td-r. $assidy was %arried to a lady w#o

called #erself rs. $assidy. T#e defendants !ublis#ed in t#eir news!a!ers a !#otora!#

of r. $assidy and iss NIM wit# t#e followin words underneat#0 Nr. . $assidy* t#e

race #orse owner* and iss NIM* w#ose enae%ent #as been announcedM. rs. $assidy

sued t#e defendants for libel allein t#at t#e innuendo was t#at r. $assidy was not

#er #usband and #e lived wit# #er in i%%oral co#abitation. T#e $ourt of A!!eal #eldt#at t#e innuendo was establis#ed.

ii The statement m)st re*er to the plainti**-

)n an action for defa%ation* t#e !laintiff #as to !rove t#at t#e state%ent of w#ic# #e

co%!lains referred to #i%. )t is i%%aterial t#at t#e defendant did not intend to defa%e

t#e !laintiff.

Newstead v &ondon E0press Newspapers &td-t#e defendants !ublis#ed an articlestatin t#at N&arold ;ewstead* a $a%berwell %anM #ad been convicted of bia%y. T#e

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

24/34

story was true of &arold ;ewstead* a $a%berwell bar%an. T#e action for defa%ation

was brou#t by anot#er &arold ;ewstead* a $a%berwell barber. As t#e words were

considered to be understood as referrin to t#e !laintiff* t#e defendants were #eld liable.

iii the statement m)st be p)blished-

4ublication %eans %ain t#e defa%atory %atter nown to so%e !erson ot#er t#an t#e

!erson defa%ed* and unless t#at is done* no action for defa%ation lies.

6ahendra #am v +arnandan Prasad- t#e defendant sent a defa%atory letter written

in ,rdu to t#e !laintiff. T#e !laintiff did not now ,rdu and t#erefore t#e was read over

to #i% by t#ird !erson. )t was #eld t#at t#e defendant was not liable unless it was

!roved t#at at t#e ti%e of writin t#e letter in ,rdu scri!t* t#e defendant new t#at t#e

,rdu scri!t was not nown to t#e !laintiff and would necessitate readin of t#e letter by

a t#ird !erson.

iv the statement m)st be passed by the de*endant

De*ences:

T#e defences to an action for defa%ation are+

2. Bustification of trut#

6. (air co%%ent

>. 4rivilee w#ic# %ay be eit#er absolute or =ualified.

3 9)sti*ication o* tr)th-

)n a civil action for defa%ation* trut# of t#e defa%atory %atter is co%!lete defence.

,nder t#e 4enal $ode* %erely !rovin t#at t#e state%ent was true is no defence.

ection :CC re=uires t#at besides bein true* t#e i%!utation %ust be s#own to #ave been

%ade for !ublic ood.

5 Fair comment-

(or t#is defence it is re=uired0

a3 )t %ust be a co%%ent i.e. an e!ression of o!inion

b3 t#e co%%ent %ust be fair

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

25/34

c3 t#e %atter co%%ented u!on %ust be of !ublic interest.

Privilege is o* two types:1a3 Absolute !rivilee and 1b3 Qualified !rivilee

(a !bsol)te privilege-

i3 4arlia%entary !roceedins+ Art. F71>3 of t#e $onstitution states* a %e%ber of

4arlia%ent s#all not be liable in any $ourt in res!ect of anyt#in said* or any vote

iven* by #i% in 4arlia%ent or in any co%%ittee t#ereof.

ii3 Budicial !roceedins+

iii3 tate co%%unications+

(b ,)ali*ied privilege-in certain cases* t#e defence of =ualified !rivilee is also

available. To avail t#is defence* t#e defendant #as to !rove t#e followin two !oints0

i3 T#e state%ent was %ade on a !rivileed occasion* i.e. it was in disc#are of duty or

!rotection of an interest

ii3 T#e state%ent was %ade wit#out any %alice.

Trespass:

Tres!ass is of two ty!es0

1i3 Tres!ass to body*

1ii3 Tres!ass to land

Tres!ass to body0 !lease !re!are t#e AA,LT and ATTER in t#is to!ic

Trespass to land or property0Tres!ass to land %eans interference wit# t#e !ossession of land wit#out lawful

justification. )n tres!ass* t#e interference wit# t#e !ossession is direct and t#rou# so%e

tanible object.

Tres!ass is a wron aainst !ossession rat#er t#an owners#i!. T#erefore* a !erson in

actual !ossession can brin an action even t#ou#* aainst t#e true owner* #is

!ossession was wronful.

#emedies:bot# judicial and etra judicial. E0tra 7)dicial remediesare0

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

26/34

i3 Re+entry

ii3 Action for eject%ent

iii3 Action for %esne !rofit

iv3 Distress da%ae !#easant+ to sei/e tres!assin cattle until co%!ensation #as been

!aid.

9)dicial remediesare %entioned in s. 6CF and ::2+:86 of t#e 4enal $ode* 27890

&iability:

Liability is of two ty!es0

1i3 Absolute or strict* and

1ii3 @icarious.

(i !bsol)te or strict liability-o%eti%es a !erson %ay be liable for so%e #ar% even

t#ou# #e is not nelient in causin t#e sa%e* or t#ere is no intention to cause t#e

#ar%* or so%eti%es #e %ay even #ave %ade so%e !ositive efforts to avert t#e sa%e.

)n #ylands v Fletcher; 3

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

27/34

a Principal and agent--#ere one !erson aut#ori/es anot#er to co%%it a tort* t#e

liability for t#at will be not only of t#at !erson w#o #as co%%itted it but also of t#at

w#o aut#ori/ed it. )t is based on t#e eneral !rinci!le NQui facit !er aliu%facit !er seM

w#ic# %eans t#at t#e act of an aent is t#e act of t#e !rinci!al. (or any act aut#ori/ed

by t#e !rinci!al and done by t#e aent bot# of t#e% are liable.

&loyd v ?race; %mith @ o Ars. Lloyd* w#o owned two cottaes but was not

satisfied wit# t#e inco%e t#ere fro%* a!!roac#ed t#e office of Grace* %it# P $o.* a

fir% of solicitors* to consult t#e% about t#e %atter of #er !ro!erty. T#e %anain cler

of t#e co%!any attended #er and advised #er to sell t#e two cottaes and invest t#e

%oney in a better way. #e was ased to sin two docu%ents* w#ic# were su!!osed to

be sale deeds. )n fact* t#e docu%ents ot sined were ift deeds in t#e na%e of t#e

%anain cler #i%self. &e #ad acted solely for #is !ersonal benefit and wit#out t#enowlede of #is !rinci!al. )t was #eld t#at since t#e aent was actin in t#e course of

#is aut#ority* t#e !rinci!al was liable for t#e fraud.

b Partners-T#e relations#i! as between !artners is t#at of !rinci!al and aent. T#e

rules of t#e law of aency a!!ly in case of t#eir liability also. (or t#e tort co%%itted by

any !artner in t#e ordinary course of t#e business of t#e fir%* all ot#er !artners are

liable to t#e sa%e etent as t#e uilty !artner.

+amlyn v +o)ston @ o-One of t#e two !artners of t#e defendantMs fir%* actin

wit#in t#e eneral sco!e of #is aut#ority as a !artner* bribed t#e !laintiffMs cler and

induced #i% to %ae a breac# of contract wit# #is e%!loyer 1!laintiff3 by divulin

secrets of t#e fir% were liable for t#is wronful act co%%itted by only one of t#e%.

c 6aster and servant-A servant is a !erson e%!loyed by anot#er to do wor under

t#e directions and control of #is %aster. )f a servant does a wronful act in t#e course of

#is e%!loy%ent* t#e %aster is liable for it. T#e servant* of course* is also liable. T#e

doctrine of liability of t#e %aster for act of #is servant is based on t#e %ai%Nres!ondent su!eriorM* w#ic# %eans Nlet t#e !rinci!al be liableM.

(or t#e liability of t#e %aster to arise* t#e followin two essentials are to be !resent0

i3 T#e tort was co%%itted by t#e NservantM5

ii3 T#e servant co%%itted t#e tort in t#e Ncourse of #is e%!loy%entM.

N)isance:

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

28/34

;uisance is a tort %eans an unlawful interference wit# a !ersonMs use or enjoy%ent of

land* or so%e ri#t over* or in connection wit# it. T#e interference %ay be any way* e..

noise* vibration* #eat* s%oe* s%ell* fu%es* water* as* electricity or disease !roducin

er%s.

;uisance is distinuis#ed fro% tres!ass+

Trespass N)isance

)nterference is direct. )nterference is conse=uential.

)t is interference wit# a !ersonMs

!ossession of land.

)t is interference wit# a !ersonMs use of

land.

T#e interference is always t#rou# so%e%aterial or tanible objects.

;uisance can be co%%itted t#rou# t#e%ediu% of intanible objects.

Tres!ass is actionable !er se. !ecial da%ae #as to be !roved in order

to obtain re%edy.

;uisance is of two ty!es0

1i3 4ublic or co%%on nuisance

1ii3 4rivate nuisance* or tort of nuisance

i P)blic N)isance

4ublic nuisance is a cri%e w#ereas !rivate nuisance is a civil wron. 4ublic nuisance is

interference wit# t#e ri#t of !ublic in eneral and is !unis#able as an offence. (or

ea%!le* obstructin a !ublic way by diin a trenc#. uc# obstruction %ay cause

inconvenience to %any !ersons but none can be allowed to brin a civil action for t#at.

ii Private n)isance

To constitute t#e tort of nuisance* t#e followin essentials are re=uired to be !roved0

a3 unreasonable interference

b3 )nterference is wit# t#e use of enjoy%ent of land

c3 Da%ae

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

29/34

a )nreasonable inter*erence- )nterference %ay cause da%ae to t#e !laintiffMs

!ro!erty or %ay cause !ersonal disco%fort to t#e !laintiff in t#e enjoy%ent of !ro!erty.

Every interference is not a nuisance. To constitute nuisance* t#e interference s#ould be

unreasonable. "shaben v $hagya&a0mihitra6andir.

b Inter*erence with the )se or en7oyment o* land-)nterference %ay cause eit#er0 1i3

injury to t#e !ro!erty itself* or 163 injury to co%fort or #ealt# of occu!ants of certain

!ro!erty.

c Damage-,nlie tres!ass* w#ic# is actionable !er se* actual da%ae is re=uired to be

!roved in an action for nuisance.

Fay v Prentice-a cornice of t#e defendantMs #ouse !rojected over t#e !laintiffMs

arden. )t was #eld t#at t#e %ere fact t#at t#e cornice !rojected over t#e !laintiffMs

arden raises a !resu%!tion of fall of rain water into and da%ae to t#e arden and t#e

sa%e need not be !roved. )t was a nuisance. )n !rivate nuisance* alt#ou# da%ae is

one of t#e essentials* t#e law often !resu%e it.

Di**erence between p)blic n)isance and private n)isance-

P)blic n)isance Private n)isance

)t is a cri%e. )t is a civil wron

)t is interference wit# t#e ri#t of !ublic

in eneral.

)t is interference wit# t#e ri#t of an

individual or few !ersons

;one is allowed to brin a civil action

aainst it.

T#e !erson w#ose ri#t is interfered wit#

can brin a civil action aainst it.

De*ence

i Prescriptive right to commit n)isance+ A ri#t to do an act* w#ic# would ot#erwise

be a nuisance* %ay be ac=uired by !rescri!tion. )f a !erson #as continued wit# an

activity on t#e land of anot#er !erson for 26 years or %ore* #e ac=uires a leal ri#t by

!rescri!tion* to continue t#erewit# in future also. T#is ri#t is called ease%ent ri#t.

ii %tat)tory a)thority-An act done under t#e aut#ority of a statute is a co%!lete

defence. T#us* a railway co%!any aut#ori/ed to run railway trains on a trac is not

liable if* in s!ite of due care* t#e s!ars fro% t#e enine set fire to t#e adjoinin

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

30/34

!ro!erty* or t#e value of t#e adjoinin !ro!erty is de!reciated by t#e noise* vibrations

and s%oe by t#e runnin of trains.

Provisions o* n)isance in the Penal ode

T#ere are 22 ty!es of nuisance %entioned in s. 687 H s. 6C:A.

4lease !re!are t#e iven to!ics in detail fro% boo t#is is only just introduction.

NE?&I?ENE

6eaning:-t#e ter% nelience %eans w#ere a !erson #as a duty to tae care and t#e

care is not taen resultin in injury to anot#er. )n ot#er words* infliction of an injury or

da%ae as a result of failure to tae care is called ;elience.

Definition0+ !rof. -infield defined NnelienceM as t#e breac# of a leal duty to tae

care* w#ic# results in da%ae* undesired by t#e defendant to t#e !laintiff.

aron Alderson in lyt# vs. ir%in#a% water wors co.* defined ;elience is t#e

o%ission to do so%et#in* w#ic# a reasonable %an uided u!on t#ose consideration*w#ic# ordinarily reulate #u%an affairs* would do or doin so%et#in* w#ic# a !rudent

or reasonable %an would not do

Essentials o* Negligence:-t#e !laintiff in an action for nelience* #as to !rove t#e

followin conditions 0

). T#at t#e defendant owed a duty of care towards t#e !laintiff 1DefendantMs duty to tae

care towards t#e !laintiff3.

)). T#at t#e defendant co%%itted a breac# of suc# duty 1reac# of duty by t#e defendant35

and))). T#at t#e !laintiff suffered da%ae as a conse=uence t#ereof 1i.e. !roi%ate da%ae3.

2. De*endantBs d)ty o* care towards the plainti**:-t#e !laintiff #as to !rove t#at t#e defendant

owed a duty of care towards #i%. T#is =uestion ca%e for discussion in t#e followin leadin

case0

Dono#ue vs. tevenson12C>63A.$. 86 0 in t#e instant case Lord Atin laid down t#e

!rinci!le of nei#bour#ood to decide t#e eistence of suc# duty of care.

6. $reach o* d)ty:- the plainti** #as to !rove t#at t#e defendant co%%itted a breac# of duty.

reac# of duty %eans non+observance of a duty or failure to tae care. -#et#er t#edefendant #ad taen necessary care or not de!ends u!on t#e followin factors.

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

31/34

a Importance or )tility o* act

b ?ravity o* the ris4

c ases o* emergency

14lease ive t#e above !oints in detail3

#E% I%P%! &O,"IT"# (I6PO#T!NTEI$E4T)O; TO T&E R,LE 4ROO( O( ;EGL)GE;$E

)n an action for nelience* t#e !laintiff #as to !rove t#e breac# of duty to tae care on t#e !art of

t#e defendant. ut t#ere are certain circu%stances* in w#ic# t#e !laintiff will succeed wit#out

!roof of nelience on t#e !art of t#e defendant. T#is ece!tion is ens#rined in t#e latin %ai%

Nres i!salo=uitor. )t %eans t#e t#ins s!ea s for itself0 Accordin to Lord &A- *so%eti%es * a

t#in tells its owns story. T#e defendant %ay be !resu%ed to be nelient wit#out w#ic# t#e

accident would not #a!!en.

yrne vs. oddle 1278>3

unici!al $or!. of Del#i vs. ub#awanti12C883

DE(E$E0

a. Act of odb. )nevitable accident

c. $ontributory nelience

(Please prepare the above topic in detail beca)se a separate C)estion can come on this topic

ONT#I$"TO#' NE?&I?ENE

)t %eans an act of nelience in w#ic# bot# t#e defendant and t#e !laintiff are

contributors. T#at is bot# of t#e% #ave e=ually contributed for t#e co%%ission of a

nelient act.

utterfield vs. (ORETER

T#E%P!%%

T#E%P!%% TO PE#%ON

!ssa)lt

An act w#ic# causes anot#er !erson to a!!re#end t#e infliction of i%%ediate* unlawful

force on is !erson 1$ollins v -ilcoc K2C7:3.

A!!lies w#ere dft directly or indirectly causes t#e !lf to a!!re#end contact. elief of

contact %ust be reasonable. ust be %ental i%!act on !lf. -ords can of t#e%selves

constitute an assault* but %ere insults are not enou#.

$ollins v -ilcoc K2C7:

Aut#ority for t#e !ro!osition t#at an act w#ic# causes anot#er !erson to a!!re#end t#e

infliction of i%%ediate* unlawful force on is !erson.

$attery

T#e actual intended use of !#ysical force to anot#er !erson wit#out #is consent S or

any ot#er lawful ecuse 1AG Reference K2C723

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

32/34

Direct or indirect 1u!turnin of c#air w#ile sittin on it3 contact wit# a !erson wit#out

consent or lawful aut#ority. (orce or !#ysical injury is not re=uired but t#ere %ust be

so%e for% of contact* alt#ou# it can be sli#t suc# as s!ittin or li#tly touc#in.

Traditionally a battery was considered to be an intentional touc#in of a #ar%ful*

#ostile* %alicious or offensive nature to w#ic# no consent or aut#ority #ad been iven

eit#er orally or verbally. Re=uire%ent of !roof of #ostility or %alice #as been

abandoned by t#e courts0 Re ( K2CC90 unreasonable li%itation on battery action. 4ran*

over+friendly sla! on bac* surery w#ere %istae re consent H no #ostile ele%ent but

%ay not be lawful.

Often aainst e%!loyees suc# as security uards* bouncers etc. E%!loyee %ust s#ow #e

acted !ro!ortionately and wit# %ini%al force and %ay justify as self+defence of defence

of !ro!erty. )s dis!ro!ortionate or ecessive0 battery. )n eneral it will be #eld t#at

e%!loyee is actin outside t#e sco!e of #is e%!loy%ent if ecessive force is used and

t#erefore t#e e%!loyer is not vicariously liable.

aGibbons v ecuricor K699:0 $ourt found t#at0

+ An occu!ier can wit#draw a !ersonMs licence to be !resent P individual co%%its

tres!ass if refuses to leave.

+ A deree of force %ay be used to re%ove a !erson fro% t#e !re%ises w#ere t#ey are

tres!assin.

+ )f a !erson assaults or batters anot#er or atte%!ts to* t#at ot#er !erson can use

reasonable force to defend t#e%selves.

@icti% of c#ild seual or violent abuse %ay sue in tres!ass. tatute of Li%itations

1A%end%ent3 Act 69990 !ost!ones o!eration of 8 year li%itation w#ere !lf suffered

sinificant !syc#oloical injury as result of earlier abuse. Dela#unty for vicarious.

False Imprisonment

T#e unlawful restraint or detention of t#e !lf.

Essential ele%ent is t#e unlawful detention of t#e !erson* or t#e unlawful restraint on

#is liberty. Does not need to be actually aware t#at bein falsely i%!risoned. ay be

i%!rison%ent wit#out walls H detention %ust only be suc# as to li%it t#e !artyMs

freedo% of %ove%ent in all directions. + Dullu#an v &illen K2CF.

locin one %eans of eit will not suffice if !lf #as reasonable %eans of esca!e 1not

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

33/34

danerous or w#ere !lf was not aware of eerin v Gra#a% -#ite Aviation3. ird v

Bones0 &a%%ers%it# ride* refused to use alternative H not false i%!rison%ent.

@icarious liability w#ere tort was co%%itted in course or sco!e of e%!loy%ent and if

acts ecessive* courts %ust deter%ine w#et#er aut#ori/ed by e%!loyer. Dillon v Dunnestores K2C87

TRESPASS TO LAND

Tres!ass to land occurs w#ere a !erson directly enters u!on anot#er's land wit#out !er%ission*

or re%ains u!on t#e land* or !laces or !rojects any object u!on t#e land.

T#is tort is actionable !er se wit#out t#e need to !rove da%ae.

y contrast* nuisance is an indirect interference wit# anot#er's use and enjoy%ent of land* and

nor%ally re=uires !roof of da%ae to be actionable.

!'% IN +I+ T#E%P!%% 6!' O"#

Entering )pon land

-alin onto land wit#out !er%ission* or refusin to leave w#en !er%ission #as been wit#drawn* or

t#rowin objects onto land are all ea%!le of tres!ass to land. (or ea%!le* see asely v $larson128723 > Lev >F* below. T#is tort develo!ed to !rotect a !erson's !ossession of land* and so only a

!erson w#o #as eclusive !ossession of land %ay sue.

T#us* a landlord of leased !re%ises does not #ave eclusive !ossession* nor does a loder or a

licensee. &owever* a tenant or subtenant does.

ONTIN"IN? T#E%P!%%

A continuin tres!ass is a failure to re%ove an object 1or t#e defendant in !erson3 unlawfully !laced

on land. )t will lead to a new cause of action eac# day for as lon as it lasts 1&ol%es v -ilson and

ot#ers 127>C3 29 APE 9>5 onsier v Good%an Ltd K2C67 2 :623.

(or ea%!le* in &ol%es v -ilson and ot#ers 127>C3 t#e Ds built su!!orts for a road on 4's land. T#e

Ds !aid da%aes for t#e tres!ass* but were #eld liable aain in a furt#er action for failin to re%ove

t#e buttresses.

6I%T!EN O# NE?&I?ENT ENT#'

Tres!ass to land is an intentional tort. &owever* intention for t#e act is re=uired* not an intention to

tres!ass. $onse=uently* deliberate entry is re=uired and lac of nowlede as to tres!ass will not be a

defence 1$onway v Geore -i%!ey P $o K2C2 6 688* 6F>3.

7/25/2019 K- 103 LAW OF TORT

34/34

6ista4en entry ($asely v lar4son (3= Lev >F* t#e D owned land adjoinin 4's* and in %owin #is own land #e

involuntarily and by %istae %owed down so%e rass on t#e land of 4. 4 #ad jud%ent for 6s.

Invol)ntary entry (%mith v %tone (3=.8 %ty =1

An involuntary tres!ass is not actionable0 %it# v tone 128:F3 ty 8* w#ere D was carried onto t#e

land of 4 by force and violence of ot#ers5 t#ere was tres!ass by t#e !eo!le w#o carried D onto t#e

land* and not by D.

Negligent entry (&eag)e !gainst r)el %ports v %cott

A nelient entry is !ossible and was considered in Leaue Aainst $ruel !orts v cott. T#e 4s

owned 6> unfenced areas of land. ta#ounds used to enter t#e land in !ursuit of deer. T#e 4s sued t#e

joint asters of t#e &ounds for da%aes and sou#t an injunction aainst furt#er tres!asses. 4ar B

issued an injunction in res!ect of one area restrainin t#e defendants t#e%selves* t#eir servants or

aents* or %ounted followers* fro% causin or !er%ittin #ounds to enter or cross t#e !ro!erty.

Da%aes for si tres!asses were awarded. T#e jude said0

"-#ere a %aster of sta#ounds taes out a !ac of #ounds and deliberately sets t#e% in !ursuit of a

sta or #ind nowin t#at t#ere is a real ris t#at in t#e !ursuit #ounds %ay enter or cross !ro#ibited

land* t#e %aster will be liable for tres!ass if #e intended to cause t#e #ounds to enter suc# land or if by#is failure to eercise !ro!er control over t#e% #e causes t#e% to enter suc# land."