Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7



REG #: BB073035 SECTION: 01 30-05- 2011

According to Salmond, a tort may be defined as, a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action for unliquidated damages, and which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of a trust or other merely equitable obligation. According to Underhill tort may be defined as, A wrong independent of contract and resulting, (a) In the infringement of some absolute right to which another is entitled; (b) In the infringement of some qualified right of another causing actual damage; (c) In the infringement of some public right causing some special damage to an individual.

1. Absolute Right
A man has absolute right to his property, to the immunity of his person (reputation), to his liberty and security. An infringement of such a right is actionable per se, i.e., without proof of any special damage. Thus trespass to property or person is punishable even though no actual damage has occurred. False imprisonment for short period is an example. Also mental shock affords as much a ground for action as a limb broken.

2. Qualified Right
A qualified right means a right to be preserved from damage by certain actions or omissions of other persons. It is a right to be saved from infringement from others and no action will lie without proof of actual damages. Instances of the infringement of qualified rights are fraud or deceit, negligence, malicious prosecution, nuisance, etc. In all these cases damage is an essential part of the causes of action.

3. Public Rights
A public right means a right that all men enjoy in common. Thus a right of using the highway is a public right. No action will lie for infringement of such a right unless the plaintiff has suffered some substantial or particular damage beyond that which is suffered by the public.


Every invasion of legal right imports legal damages, though the person injured may not suffer any pecuniary loss by the wrongful act. If it is shown that there was a violation of some legal right, the law will presume damage. Thus an action will lie for making a defamatory statement, though the plaintiff has not lost a penny by reason of that statement.

Ubi jus ubi remedium

The law of torts is a development of the maxim ubi jus ubi remedium (there is no wrong without a remedy). Jus signifies here the legal authority to do or to demand something;and remedium may be defined to be the right of action. In the case of the invasion of an absolute private right there is a wrong done to the plaintiff by the mere infringement of that right; and for every such wrong there is a remedy by action (Ashby vs. White). The above maxim does not mean that there is a legal remedy for every moral or political wrong. Thus there is no legal remedy for a solemn promise made without consideration or for an oppressive legislation, though may reduce men practically to slavery. The maxim means only that the legal wrong and the legal remedy are correlative terms: where there is a legal right there is a legal remedy (want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal terms).

These two maxims illustrate the real significance of legal damage. By damnum is meant damage in the sense of substantial loss of money, comfort, health, or the like. By injuria is meant an unauthorized interference, however trivial, with some right conferred by law on the plaintiff.

Injuria sine damnumInjuria sine damnum

The maxim Injuria sine Damnum means infringement of an absolute legal private right without any actual loss or damage; the injured person has a cause of action. Thus the maxim means infringement of a legal right will give rise to an action irrespective of the fact that no actual loss or damage has taken place.

Cases: Ashby vs. White

The defendant, a returning officer, refused to register the plaintiffs vote, duly tendered and legally receivable. The candidate for whom the vote was tendered was, however, elected in the end. It was held that in the case of invasion of an absolute legal right there is a wrong done to the plaintiff by the mere infringement of that right and that an action lies, even though no loss was suffered by the Plaintiff by the rejection of the vote.

Municipal Board of Agra vs. Ashrafi Lal

The Plaintiff, who was entitled to be upon the electoral roll, was wrongfully omitted from such roll so as to be deprived of his right to vote. It was held that the Plaintiff suffered a legal wrong for which an action lay.

Damnum sine Injuria

The maxim damnum sine injuria means actual and substantial loss without infringement of any legal right; no action lies. As Salmond has observed, there are many acts which though harmful are not wrongful and give no right of action to him who suffers their effects.

Ratting Vs. Municipal Committee of Lahore

The defendant, the Lahore Municipal Committee, built a slaughterhouse near the Plaintiffs house and the value of Plaintiffs house was thereby diminished. It was held that the act causing the damage was lawful and therefore, it was not actionable.


1. Intentional. 2. Negligent conduct. 3. Strict liability. 4. Vicarious liability. 5. Defamation. 6. Nuisance.

Bad actors are liable for punitive damages Intention is important for five main torts of assault, battery, trespass to land, trespass to chattels, conversion, and false imprisonment. Intent to commit one intentional tort is transferable to another tort (e.g., assault to battery) as well as to another person (intended to hit one person and hit another).

The term assault encompasses a threatened or attempted physical attack against an individual by a person who appears to have the ability to cause bodily harm.

Battery is a criminal offense which involves unlawful physical contact.

Trespass Land:
Trespass to land involves the "wrongful interference with one's possessory rights in (real) property.

Trespass to chattels:
Trespass to chattels, also known as trespass to goods or trespass to personal property, is defined as "an intentional interference with the possession of personal property proximately cause injury."

A conversion is a voluntary act by one person inconsistent with the ownership rights of another.

False imprisonment:
False imprisonment is the intentional, unlawful, and unconsented restraint by one person of the physical liberty of another.

Negligence is generally defined as the failure to use ordinary care. A person fails to use ordinary care if he/she does something that a person of ordinary prudence would not have done under the same or similar circumstances. Failure to use ordinary care can also occur by omission, or failing to do something, which a person of ordinary prudence would have done under the same or similar circumstances. Negligence, then, is a judgment of both acts and omissions. Consider, for example, a car wreck case. The drivers involved can be found negligent for doing what they should have not done, e.g., driving too fast or driving on the wrong side of the road; or, they may be found negligent

for failing to act, e.g., failing to slow down, failing to stop, or failing to drive on the proper side of the road. Whether the conduct is described in terms of acts or omissions, the conduct is judged against a standard of ordinary care.

Some persons or companies are strictly liable for certain activities that harm others, even when they have not acted negligently or with wrongful intent. Persons or companies engaged in blasting, storing dangerous, toxic substances or keeping dangerous animals, for example, could be strictly liable for harm caused to others. The theory behind imposing strict liability on the part of those conducting such activities is that these activities pose an undue risk of harm to members of the community. Thus, anyone who conducts that activity does so at his own risk and is liable when something goes wrong--even innocently-and someone is harmed. The people who posed the risk are in the best position to pay for it. Holding manufacturers liable for injuries their products cause is a good example of strict liability.

2. 3. 4. 5.

Abnormal dangerous activity: spurious drugs Animals: keeping wild animals Defective products OR product liability Concept of Warranty

Vicarious liability
Vicarious liability is an injury to a person who did not cause the injury but who has a particular legal relationship to the person who did act negligently.

Defamation is an injury to the reputation or character of someone resulting from the false statements or actions of another his friends, colleagues, relatives and general public. Defamation have tow types Libel and Slander. 1. Libel is a term describing visual defamation, usually in the form of lies in print, or misleading or deceptive photographs. 2. Slander is a term describing defamation that you hear, not see, usually in the form of someone talking trash about you or spreading or repeating lies and unfounded rumor.

All acts which adversely affect the physical abilities of an average person are attributed to nuisance.
Types of Nuisance Private Nuisance Private nuisance is the thing or activity which substantially and unreasonably interferes with plaintiffs use and enjoyment of his rights, e.g., health, safety etc. Public Nuisance Public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public, e.g., public health, public safety, public comfort, public convenience etc.


1. A breach of contract is an infringement of a right in personam, i.e., of a right available only against a particular individual or individuals and not against the community at large; whereas a tort is a violation of a right in rem, i.e., of a right available against the world at large. 2. A contract is founded upon the free consent of the parties: whereas a tort is inflicted against or without consent. 3. In an action for breach of contract privy between the parties is necessary; whereas in an action for tort no privy is needed. 4. In an action for breach of contract the motive of the defendant is immaterial, whereas in an action for tort it is sometimes taken into consideration. 5. In torts the damages claimed are necessarily unliquidated, while in a contract, they may be fixed by the agreement itself.

Defences in Torts
Act of God, Mistake, Consent, Contributory negligence, assumption of risk, Last clear chance, Self-defence, Truth, Fare Comment, privilege.

Похожие интересы