Nature and Concept of Tort

Nature and Concept of Tort

The Latin word "tortus," which means "wrong" or "crooked," is where the term "tort" originates. It makes references to notorious or deviant behaviour. The equivalent word in English has to be changed. Thus, under common law, a tort is a civil violation. Consequently, the Law of Tort's main goal is to compensate people who have suffered civil wrongs as a result of the deeds or inactions of others.

CLAT 2025: 10 Free Mock Tests | Legal Maxims | Landmark Judgements | PYQs

CUET BA LLB 2025:  Legal Studies ebook | 5 Free Mock Tests

MH CET LAW 2025: 10 Free Mock Tests | Legal Reasoning Practice Questions

Monthly Legal Current Affairs:  August’24 | July’24 | June’24

This Story also Contains

1. Nature and Concept of Tort
2. Meaning of Tort in Law
3. The objective of a Tort
4. Essentials of a Tort
5. Nature of tort and its legal concept
6. Elements of tort law
7. Cases and examples of tort
8. Conclusion

Meaning of Tort in Law

A civil wrong arises when a legal responsibility is breached, defined as breaching or neglecting to abide by a law, agreement, or rule of behaviour. Thus, among the obligations are, for instance, not to harm another individual, not to Trespass to person and Trespass to Land (enter onto another person's property without permission), not to take another person's property, and to use caution so as not to injure one's neighbour.

While some obligations are recognised in the common law, others are outlined by legislation. The focus on the distinction between torts and crimes is what sets them apart from civil wrongs.

The objective of a Tort

• to ascertain the parties' respective rights in a dispute.

• to provide injunctions to prevent harm from occurring or from worsening.

• to protect each individual's legally acknowledged rights, reputation included.

• to give back ownership of property that has been wrongfully taken from its legitimate owner.

Essentials of a Tort

The Tort comes into the scene when a party to a contract fails or refuses to perform their liabilities or obligations which leads to a Breach of contract or loss or injury to the other party to the contract. There are certain essentials to take into consideration to constitute a tort. They are-

A Wrongful Act or Omission

A wrongdoing can be both legally and ethically incorrect at the same time, or it can be both. Any conduct that infringes upon someone's legal rights qualifies as a legally wrongful act; additionally, the act must be recognized by the law and be against the law. When a wrongful act is reported as being an infringement of a private right or a breach or violation of a legal duty, liability for the tort results.

Duty Imposes by Law

Every person is required to uphold a standard of reasonable care that they may reasonably see to be harmful to others. This is known as a duty of care. Therefore, a legal obligation may be enforced in Indian courts.

Such an act must give rise to legal damage

Although they may appear similar, the terms "damages" and "damage" have different meanings and are not to be mistaken. "Damages" relates to the compensation that is sought, whereas "damage" refers to actual loss or injury.

Injuria sine Damno

The definitions of injuria, sine, and damno are respectively "any physical loss," "injury," and "without." The phrase "injuria sine damno" refers to hurt or damage done to an offended party without any physical harm occurring. It denotes a hurt sustained without a real loss as a result.

In the case of, Ashby v. White

In this case, The claimant was an eligible voter. The plaintiff was denied the opportunity to vote, nonetheless, by the defendant. In addition to monetary damages, it was established that legal damages against such limitations would also be considered harm. If the aforementioned person's legal rights are infringed, they may file a lawsuit to seek remedies.

Damnum Sine Injuria

Injuria sine damno is essentially what this statement opposes. A person who is subject to Damnum sine injuria suffers losses or damages without having their legal rights violated or trampled upon.

Nature of tort and its legal concept

Civil Wrong

Unlike a criminal offence, a tort is a civil wrong. It entails when someone violates a legal obligation owed to another, causing hurt, injury, or damage.

Breach of Duty

A tort is when someone violates an obligation. A tort occurs when someone disobeys a legal duty or obligation to another individual, such as when they are expected to exercise reasonable caution, respect the property rights of others, or refrain from intentionally harming others.

Damage or Harm

A tort results in harm, injury, or damage to the person, thing, reputation, or financial interests of another person. This harm could be material, psychological, or physical.

Compensation

One of the primary objectives of tort law is to compensate the sufferer for their losses. Restoring the victim to the condition they would have been in had the tortious act not occurred is the aim of the compensation. The amount of compensation awarded depends on the type and severity of the damage received.

Legal Remedy

Torts give rise to the possibility of legal remedies. The individual who suffered loss, known as the plaintiff, may file a lawsuit to get declaratory relief, injunctions, and monetary compensation.

Civil Proceedings

Tort disputes are typically resolved by civil procedures in a court of law. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to demonstrate that the defendant's actions or inactions caused the harm that was experienced. The defendant is given the chance to contest the charges.

Elements of tort law

Strict Liability Tort

"No-fault liability" is a term frequently used in tort law to refer to "strict liability," which indicates that "liability would exist irrespective of any fault." Certain actions are inherently dangerous, and the person doing them has to make up for any harm they create, whether or not they were careless. The establishment of such liability is justified by the predictable risk connected to certain types of activities. In the Rylands v. Fletcher case, the House of Lords initially adopted this stance.

The Strict Liability Rule's Origins The Law of Torts originated from the notoriety of the Rylands v. Fletcher case. In this case, the defendant desired to enhance the water supply to his mill. For this reason, he hired a respected engineering firm to create a nearby reservoir.

The issue began when the reservoir filled up to the point that water began to overflow. When the water suddenly burst into the plaintiff's mine with such intensity, everything was destroyed. It was obvious that the engineers, who worked as independent contractors for the defendant, were at fault. This is the result of their carelessness during the reservoir's construction. And the defendant made this exact claim to absolve himself of responsibility.

The court determined that the strict liability rule applied in this instance. It declared that nothing maintained on one's property for private use needs to seep out and endanger others. If the thing escapes, its owner is still obligated to compensate the victim, even if he was not negligent.

Intentional Tort

Assault and Battery

There are two different types of trespassing against a person: assault and battery. A battery is defined as the deliberate use of force against an individual. Assault refers to a defendant's activity that makes the plaintiff fear the defendant would employ battery against them.

A battery is defined as the deliberate, direct application of physical force against an individual. For there to be a battery, there must be direct physical contact without the victim's consent and with the intent to cause harm. Essentially, the battery falls into two groups, which are;

Criminal Battery

A battery that is rarely regarded as illegal is referred to as a criminal battery. A criminal battery only needs to involve the deliberate use of a dangerous tool or weapon with the purpose of killing or seriously hurting someone.

Civil Battery

A civil battery is a battery that is rarely seen as a civil wrong. Even if an individual has no desire to cause harm to another person, they can nonetheless commit a civil wrong if they carry out an act that causes harm to that person or if they had the purpose to do so and did something to achieve that goal. As a result, someone might be held accountable for civil battery even if they had no intention of committing a tort.

Constitutional Tort

The primary legal duty that is violated is the foundation of tortious liability. Under a tort, the party who has been wronged may always pursue damages for the violation of their rights. Both compensatory and nominal damages are possible. In India, a novel idea known as a constitutional tort has emerged, allowing for the pursuit of damages for violations of the Fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India. In India, the courts have declared the state action null and void while at the same time beginning to provide compensation. To put it simply, when the Constitution's fundamental Human rights are infringed, the state is held legally responsible.

History of Constitutional Tort in India

The Acts of the British East India Company are the source of India's constitutional tort history. Section 65 of the Government of India Act of 1858 was the first to contain it. Section 176 of the Government of India Act, 1935 expanded on this. Consequently, Article 300 of the Indian Constitution was based on Section 176. The Constitution's Article 300 allows lawsuits and legal actions to be brought against the state under the Union of India's name. Thus, the state's tortious liability results from its servant's vicarious culpability when they carry out non-sovereign activities.

In the case of Bhim Singh v. State of J&K

In this case, The petitioner, a J&K MLA, was unjustly arrested by the police while he was making his way to the assembly meeting. He lost his constitutional right to attend the assembly session since he was not brought before the magistrate in the allotted time. Additionally, Article 21 of the Constitution was broken. In this instance, the court ordered the state to compensate the plaintiffs with exemplary damages of fifty thousand rupees.

Negligent Tort

In particular, negligence refers to a defendant's violation of a legal duty against a plaintiff that causes unfavourable harm. The plaintiff must persuade the court that the defendant owed them a duty of care, which they breached and caused damages to prove the tort of negligence. Above all, there must be an injury to the plaintiff that results directly from the defendant's negligence. The essential conditions to constitute a negligent tort are-

• obligation to exercise caution,

• Failure to perform duties

• Unwanted harm

Vicarious Liability

The law specifies specific responsibilities for its people. Ignoring these duties is against the law. Ignoring the obligations imposed by civil law violates tort law, not criminal law or specific civil wrongs like contract breach or betrayal of confidence. A tort is a civil offence, which means that it infringes on the wide legal rights of another person.

The legal obligation that an individual has for the deeds of another because of their relationship is known as vicarious liability. The Latin word "vice," which meaning "vice." "in place of," is where the word "vicarious" originates. Vicarious liability is the concept that one person bears responsibility for the actions of another, hence transferring the burden of proof from one party to the other.

"Qui facit per se per alium facit per se," or "He who acts through another is considered to have done it themselves," is the basis upon which vicarious responsibility is based. Consequently, vicarious liabilities arise when one person is accountable for the deeds of another. This is an exception to the general norm that holds the act's perpetrator solely responsible.

In the case of, Hamlyn v. John Houston and Co.

In this case, A firm with two partners existed. Intending to obtain private information about the employer's company, one of the partners bought off the plaintiff's clerk. It was decided that both partners would be held accountable regardless of whether the other partner knew about the other partner's actions or not.

Absolute Liability

Absolute liability is the legal doctrine that holds an individual or organization accountable for a tort without taking into account the element of guilt or purpose. Absolute responsibility has very strict rules. Absolute liability, to use colloquial language, refers to a situation in which someone is held accountable without any real wrongdoing or justification. When someone is subject to absolute liability, it is not necessary to establish mens rea; they will still be held accountable regardless of whether they intend to conduct the crime.

When there is absolute culpability, the plaintiff just needs to demonstrate that the defendant or offender conducted an act that caused damages and established causation. Furthermore, it is not the plaintiff's responsibility to establish that the defendant owed it any duty of care at all. Nonetheless, the offender will be held accountable even when they act with good intentions and without carelessness.

In the case of, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India

In this case, The Indian Supreme Court held that larger businesses would have a greater responsibility to pay damages and compensation. The compensation will be determined by the size of the business because it will serve as a deterrent.

In the aforementioned case, the Supreme Court of India explicitly rejected the idea of strict liability, as established in Ryland v. Fletcher, and instead put up the idea of absolute culpability. Furthermore, it was announced that businesses engaged in hazardous operations that might have disastrous effects on humankind will be held entirely accountable.

Defamation as a Tort

When someone's reputation is misrepresented, it is considered a tort. It involves producing, publishing, or otherwise defaming a third party to damage that person's reputation. Defamation is regarded as a civil and criminal offence in India. Since everyone has the right to a positive reputation, defamation is categorized as a tort since it violates or harms someone's reputation, which is a legal wrong and falls within the definition of a tort.

According to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, defamation is defined as when someone produces or publishes any material about another person with the intent to harm that person's reputation, either through spoken or written words, a sign, or a visible depiction.

Essentials of Defamation

• Untrue assertion

• either in writing or speaking,

• Defamatory statement (meant to cause harm to the reputation of any person)

• Publication of that declaration

Cases and examples of tort

In the case of, Kasturi Ralia Ram v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Facts of the case,

The plaintiff in this case, Kasturi Ralia Ram, was a partner in an Amritsar-based company that sold jewellery. His intention when he came to Meerut was to sell some gold and silver. Three police officers in Meerut detained him because they thought he might have the stolen goods. Following a search, he was brought to the Kotwali Police Station. He was seized with about 103 tolas, 6 matches, 1 Ratti, 2 maunds and 6 ½ seers of silver. The police Malkhana was where they were held. When Kasturi Lal was eventually set free on bail, the silver was given back to him, but the gold was not. The cops refused to restore his gold despite his repeated pleas and petitions. As a result, he launched a lawsuit to either retrieve the gold or money equivalent to the gold's value. The respondent stated that Muhammad Amir, the head policeman of the Malkahana, had stolen the gold and run away to Pakistan. Despite their best efforts, the police had been unable to locate him. The responders argued that it was not their fault as a result.

Issues Involved

1. Is it possible to hold the police accountable for their carelessness in handling Kasturi Ram's gold?

2. Is Kasturi Ram entitled to compensation from the respondent for the harm he suffered as a result of the State-appointed public workers' negligence?

3. Is the respondent eligible to use the defence of exercising sovereign powers in response to the negligence charge?

Judgement

The Indian Supreme Court ruled that the defendant was not required to pay the plaintiff's costs. It gave the respondent the right to defend actions taken while acting under sovereign authority. It was noted that the sovereign powers granted to the designated officials by the Act include the authority to make arrests, conduct searches, and confiscate property. The officials in question are granted immunity since these powers are classified as sovereign powers. The State's workers might assert immunity under sovereign power even when they had engaged in negligent behaviour while on the job. Rex non-potest peccare, or "the king can do no wrong," served as the foundation for the decision.

In the case of, Ashrafilal v. Municipal Corporation of Agra

In the case of, Ashrafilal, the plaintiff, was unable to exercise his right to vote because the concerned authorities removed his name from the voter list. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Municipal Corporation of Agra, claiming that it violated his basic rights. The plaintiff's legal right (the right to vote, which is a fundamental right) was infringed, and the court found the Municipal Corporation of Agra accountable and awarded the plaintiff compensation.

Conclusion

This article describes the Law of Torts in detail. The Law of Torts deals with the compensation for the damages dealt by the aggrieved party for breach of contract by another party in a Contract Law. The tort describes different remedies and liabilities that are put upon a person for non-performance of their duties and obligations. The state of the law of torts is not great because many people still do not know the rights they have. This is because people are not aware of their rights. In addition, because the law of torts is still uncodified and directly derives from English common law, it is less likely to be adapted to the Indian context, even though it has been done so in the past.