This article is written by Molika Bansal of 1st Year of Symbiosis Law School Noida, an intern under Legal Vidhiya
ABSTRACT
Tort law, an essential component of the legal framework, addresses civil wrongs and seeks to provide remedies for individuals harmed by the actions or inactions of others. This paper delves into tort law, its characteristics, and its historical development. It explores the influence of judge-made law in shaping the principles of tort law, emphasizing its flexibility and adaptability to evolving societal needs. Additionally, it examines the subtle distinction between the “law of tort” and the “law of torts” and their respective applications in legal discourse. Through the perspectives of legal scholars and philosophers, this paper navigates the intricate landscape of tort law, elucidating its multifaceted nature and enduring significance in civil justice.
KEYWORDS: Torts, civil wrongs, civil liability, legal rights and compensation, uncodified law
INTRODUCTION
Tort law, a foundational pillar of the legal system, plays a pivotal role in addressing civil wrongs and providing remedies for individuals who have suffered harm or injury due to the wrongful actions or omissions of others. The development of tort law over the years has been marked by significant evolution, adapting to the changing dynamics of society and its legal needs. This body of law has its roots in principles that extend beyond the confines of contracts and trusts, encompassing a wide range of legal obligations and remedies. This paper explores the essence of tort law, its characteristics, and its evolution, shedding light on the significance of judge-made law in shaping its contours. It also examines the nuanced distinction between the “law of tort” and the “law of torts” and their contextual usage. Through an exploration of various perspectives and definitions by legal scholars and philosophers, this paper provides an in-depth understanding of the multifaceted nature of tort law.
OVERVIEW
Definitions of Torts by Various Philosophers:
According to Salmond, a “tort” is a civil wrongdoing for which the remedy is a common law action to claim damages that is not exclusively related to the breach of a contract or trust, or other equitable obligations.
Winfield defines “torts” as liability arising from breaching a duty primarily established by the law, which is generally owed to individuals and can be remedied by a legal action seeking unliquidated damages.
Pollock’s contribution to the definition is that a “tort” is an act or omission, not just a breach of a duty arising from personal relations or contractual obligations, which leads to harm a specific person suffers, resulting in a civil remedy other than a contract-related action.
Faeser defines “tort” as an infringement upon a private individual’s right in rem, entitling them to compensation through legal action.
Peter Brick’s definition states that “tort” is the violation of a legal duty that affects an individual’s interests significantly enough for them to complain on their behalf rather than as a representative of society.
Burdick defines “tort” as an act or omission that unlawfully violates a person’s legal right, created by law, and for which the appropriate remedy is a common law action seeking damages by the injured party.
Keeton and Keeton define “torts” as a body of law dealing with granting or denying claims of individuals or legal entities against each other for damages or other legal relief.
American Jurist Edward Kionka describes “tort” as an elusive concept involving someone suffering harm due to another’s action or failure to act. Tort law is not codified and remains largely unaffected by statutes.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of Hall v Herbert, emphasized the difficulty in defining torts, suggesting that it is best understood by what it is not, distinguishing it from criminal and contractual law. Lord Denning of The House of Lords succinctly defines the province of tort as allocating responsibility for injurious conduct.
Section 2(m) of the Limitation Act of 1963 defines “torts” as civil wrongs that are not exclusively breaches of contracts or trusts.
In the book “Street on Torts” by John Murphy and Christian Witting, “tort” is described as a branch of civil law concerning obligations imposed by law on all natural and artificial persons. These obligations, owed from one person to another, involve norms of conduct that arise outside of contracts and unjust enrichment. Tort allows the person to whom the obligation is owed to seek a remedy on their behalf when a breach of a relevant norm of conduct infringes on their interests, as recognized by the law.
The highlighting characteristic of tort law:
1. Civil Nature of Torts: Torts are civil wrongs, and it’s essential to distinguish them from criminal wrongs. Unlike criminal law, where the state prosecutes wrongdoers, in civil law, individuals must initiate legal actions themselves. In tort cases, there are no criminal punishments involved. Instead, compensation is typically awarded in the form of unliquidated damages, which means that the exact amount is not predetermined as it is in criminal cases.
2. Infringement of Rights in Rem and Rights in Persona: There are two types of rights: rights in rem and rights in persona. Rights in rem are universally applicable and can be asserted against anyone who violates them. This is a fundamental aspect of tort law, allowing individuals to seek remedies against anyone who infringes upon their rights, even if there’s no pre-existing relationship.
3. Torts Address Violations of Legal Rights: Tort law exclusively deals with violations related to legal rights. While a person may suffer economic or social losses, tort law is only concerned with breaches of legal rights. For example, in the Gloucester Grammar School case, a school’s revenue decreased due to the opening of a new school nearby. However, since no legal right was violated, the existing school had no legal recourse under tort law.
4. Maxims Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria Sine Damno: These legal principles illustrate the importance of legal injury in tort cases. Damnum Sine Injuria implies that there may be damage or loss, but if there’s no legal injury, no legal right is violated, and therefore, no legal action can be taken. Conversely, Injuria Sine Damno suggests that even if there’s no physical harm or damage, a legal injury or violation of legal rights can warrant legal action. The Ashby v. White case exemplifies this concept, where a voter’s legal right to vote was violated, leading to damages and compensation claims.
5. Compensation as the Remedy: Tort law provides remedies primarily in the form of compensation, typically awarded as damages. Unlike contract law, where damages are often pre-determined or specified in contracts, tort law calculates damages based on the actual losses suffered. In criminal law, punishment is typically in the form of imprisonment, while tort law aims to restore parties to their original positions through compensation.
6. Recognition of Rights by the Government: To seek remedies in tort law, the rights violated must be recognized by the government. These rights cannot be self-declared or based on prior consent between parties. The government must acknowledge the existence of a duty owed by the defendant, which was breached, and this breach must have directly led to the losses suffered for a legal claim to succeed.
7. Reliance on Precedents: Tort law heavily relies on precedents, meaning that previous court decisions and judgments play a vital role in shaping and interpreting the law. Unlike codified laws with written statutes and acts, tort law does not have a specific legislative framework. Instead, it evolves through case law and judicial decisions, making judicial precedents the primary source of guidance.
8. Uncodified Nature of Tort Law: Unlike criminal and contract law, which are codified with written statutes that can be amended by legislative bodies, tort law is uncodified. It needs a comprehensive legislative framework and relies on evolving case law and common law principles. Changes and developments in tort law can occur without direct government intervention.
Tort law deals with civil wrongs, primarily involving legal rights violations, and seeks to provide remedies, typically in compensation, based on precedents and common law principles. It distinguishes itself from criminal and contract law because it focuses on civil redress for legal injuries.
Development in Torts:
The law of torts in India is a relatively recent and evolving law requiring comprehensive codification under a unified framework, guided by the principle of “ubi jus ibi remedium,” which means “where there is a right, there is a remedy.” This area of law in India draws heavily from the principles of English common law. Its application within Indian courts is selective and contingent upon its suitability for the specific circumstances prevailing in Indian society.
Uncodified and Judge-Made Nature:
Even after the establishment of the Indian Constitution, the law of torts in India remains uncodified. It is primarily a product of judicial decisions, making it judge-made law. Judges have played a pivotal role in shaping and advancing the principles of tort law in India.
Advantages:
The uncodified and judge-made nature of tort law in India offers certain advantages. It provides flexibility, allowing the law to adapt to changing societal conditions. The judiciary can develop new tort law principles to address emerging situations. This flexibility ensures that tort law remains relevant and effective in modern times.
Disadvantages:
However, this uncodified and judge-made approach can also lead to uncertainties and unpredictability. Since the principles of tort law evolve through judicial decisions, it becomes challenging to anticipate how a court will rule in a particular case. This unpredictability can hinder individuals and businesses in planning their actions and making informed decisions.
In summary, tort law in India is primarily judge-made and uncodified. The benefit of this system lies in its flexibility to accommodate changing circumstances. Nevertheless, it suffers from the drawback of unpredictability due to its reliance on judicial decisions.
Examples of Judge-Made Law in Indian Tort Law:
Within the realm of tort law in India, some instances of judge-made law include:
– Strict Liability: The principle of strict liability, as seen in the Rylands v. Fletcher case, holds individuals responsible if they bring something onto their property that poses a risk to others, irrespective of negligence.
– Vicarious Liability: This principle establishes that employers can be held liable for torts committed by their employees during the course of employment.
– Contributory Negligence: This principle reduces a plaintiff’s damages proportionally if they contributed to their injury through their actions.
– Negligence: The core concept of negligence states that those owing a duty of care to others must exercise that care. A breach of this duty that results in harm can lead to liability.
These are a few examples of judge-made law within the context of torts in India. The law of torts in India primarily evolves through judicial decisions, with the Indian judiciary playing a significant role in its development.
Development in tort law over the years has been marked by significant shifts and advancements in legal principles, doctrines, and remedies. These changes have been influenced by evolving societal norms, changing economic landscapes, and judicial decisions that adapt the law to contemporary challenges.
One notable development has been the expansion of the concept of duty of care. Originally, the duty of care in negligence cases was relatively narrow and primarily applied to situations with direct physical harm. However, over time, courts have extended the duty of care to cover a wide range of scenarios, including economic loss, psychiatric harm, and even harm caused by pure omissions. This expansion has allowed tort law to better address the complexities of modern life and the various ways individuals and entities can be responsible for the well-being of others.
Another significant development in tort law has been recognizing and expanding vicarious liability. Vicarious liability holds employers responsible for the wrongful acts of their employees committed in the course of their employment. This principle has evolved to cover a broader spectrum of relationships and circumstances, including situations involving independent contractors and non-profit organizations. As a result, victims of tortious conduct have more avenues for seeking compensation from parties with the means to fulfill their legal obligations.
Additionally, developments in tort law have emphasized the importance of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as mediation and arbitration, in resolving tort disputes. These methods offer more efficient and cost-effective ways of settling claims while reducing the burden on the court system. Overall, the evolution of tort law reflects the ongoing efforts to balance individual rights and responsibilities in an ever-changing legal landscape.
Significance of Judge-Made Law in Indian Tort Law:
Judge-made law holds significance in Indian tort law for several reasons:
– Flexibility: Judge-made law is adaptable to changing circumstances, allowing the legal system to respond to emerging issues effectively.
– Responsiveness: It can address the evolving needs of society, ensuring that the law remains relevant.
– Development: Judge-made law has been a driving force behind the development of tort law in India.
– Interpretation: Judges can use judge-made principles to interpret statutes in line with tort law principles.
– Clarity: It can provide clarity and guidance regarding the application of tort law in India, helping to define its scope and boundaries.
In summary, judge-made law is significant in Indian tort law due to its flexibility, responsiveness, role in development, interpretative function, and its ability to provide clarity in legal matters. Judge-made law allows the legal system to adapt and address the evolving needs of society effectively.
Difference between Law of Tort and Law of Torts
The terms “law of tort” and “law of torts” are often used interchangeably, but there can be some nuanced differences in their usage depending on the context. Here’s a breakdown of these terms and their potential distinctions:
1. Law of Tort:
– Singular Form: “Law of tort” refers to the overarching legal framework or body of law that deals with civil wrongs or wrongful actions that result in harm or injury to others.
– General Concept: It encompasses the fundamental principles, doctrines, and rules that govern civil liability for harm caused by one person’s actions or omissions to another person.
– Often Used in Academic or Theoretical Discussions: “Law of tort” is commonly used in academic or scholarly discussions to refer to the abstract concept of tort law as a whole, discussing its historical development, philosophical underpinnings, and theoretical aspects.
– May Emphasize Universal Aspects: When using “law of tort,” the focus may be on the universal principles and common elements that are found in tort law systems worldwide.
2. Law of Torts:
– Plural Form: “Law of torts” refers to the specific branches or categories within tort law, each dealing with distinct civil wrongs or torts.
– Subdivisions of Tort Law: It represents the various categories or divisions of tort law, such as negligence, trespass, defamation, nuisance, and more.
– Practical Application: “Law of torts” is used when discussing specific legal issues, cases, or situations within tort law, emphasizing the practical application and specific rules associated with different torts.
– May Emphasize Specific Legal Rules: When using “law of torts,” the focus may be on the individual elements, legal tests, and case law related to particular torts.
While the “law of tort” tends to be more abstract and encompassing, referring to the entire field of civil wrongs and its theoretical aspects, the “law of torts” is more specific, emphasizing the distinct categories or branches within tort law and their practical application. However, the usage of these terms can vary, and in many contexts, they are used interchangeably without significant differentiation.
Landmark cases which have set the basis of Law of Torts:
Tort law is a crucial area of jurisprudence that deals with civil wrongs, providing a framework for individuals to seek legal remedies for harm caused by others. This field has evolved through various landmark cases, each contributing to the development and expansion of principles that guide legal decisions.
Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) – Doctrine of Negligence and Neighbour Principle
Donoghue v. Stevenson is a landmark case that established key principles in tort law, particularly the doctrine of negligence and the Neighbour Principle. This case transformed the landscape of liability for manufacturers and set a precedent for holding parties responsible for negligence, even in the absence of a contractual relationship.
Doctrine of Negligence: Prior to Donoghue v. Stevenson, liability for negligence typically required a pre-existing contract between the parties. This case marked a significant shift by establishing negligence as a tort in itself. It stated that if a plaintiff suffers injuries or property loss due to the defendant’s negligence, they are entitled to seek legal action. The defendant is then liable to compensate for the harm suffered. This was a pivotal departure from the previous requirement of a contractual agreement.
Neighbour Principle: The Neighbour Principle, as formulated by Lord Atkin in Donoghue v. Stevenson, expanded the boundaries of the tort of negligence. It stated that individuals owe a duty of care not only to those they have contractual relationships with but also to anyone who may foreseeably be affected by their actions. This principle introduced the concept of “neighbour” in legal terms, defining it as anyone directly impacted by one’s actions. Proper care must be taken to prevent injury or loss to such neighbours. This principle allowed individuals like Donoghue, who were not parties to the contract, to claim damages for negligence-related injuries.
Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) – Strict Liability
Rylands v. Fletcher is a seminal case that established the doctrine of strict liability in tort law. This principle holds individuals liable for harm caused by their actions, regardless of whether they were negligent or not. The case set specific criteria for the application of strict liability:
1. Defendant’s Control: The defendant must have brought something onto their land, which did not naturally occur there.
2. Non-Natural Use of Land: The use of the land must be non-natural, such as storing large quantities of water.
3. Likely to Do Mischief: The substance brought onto the land must be likely to cause harm if it escapes.
4. Escape: The substance must escape from the land.
5. Foreseeability: The harm resulting from the escape must be foreseeable.
Defendants may raise several defenses, including consent, the act of a third party, statutory authority, acts of God, and the claimant’s fault, to avoid strict liability.
Gloucester Grammar School Case (1410) – Damnum Sine Injuria
The Gloucester Grammar School case introduced the principle of “Damnum Sine Injuria” to tort law. This Latin term means “injury without damage.” The case highlights that not all injuries or harm result in legal wrongs or entitlement to compensation. In this case, even though the plaintiff suffered financial losses due to the competition posed by a nearby school, there was no legal injury as the defendant’s actions did not infringe upon any legal rights. This case emphasizes that not all moral, social, or economic wrongs are necessarily legal wrongs.
Vaughan v. Taff Vale Railway Company (1858) – Statutory Exemption from Negligence
Vaughan v. Taff Vale Railway Company illustrates the concept of statutory exemption from the doctrine of negligence. In this case, the plaintiff sought compensation for damages caused by the defendant’s negligence. However, the court upheld the defendant’s immunity because their actions were authorized by statute. This case underscores the principle that when a statute requires a person or entity to perform a particular activity, they are exempt from liability for negligence when acting in accordance with that statute.
Kasturi Ralia Ram v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (1964) – Rex Non Potest Peccare
The case of Kasturi Ralia Ram v. The State of Uttar Pradesh invokes the principle of “Rex Non Potest Peccare,” which translates to “the king can do no wrong.” In this context, it means that when actions are taken by public servants in the course of their duties, they are immune from liability for negligence. Even if the actions result in harm or loss to individuals, the state is not liable as long as the actions were within the scope of their official duties. This case reinforces the principle of sovereign immunity.
Bhim Singh v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir (1985) – Injuria Sine Damnum and False Imprisonment
The Bhim Singh case introduces the principle of “Injuria Sine Damnum,” meaning “injury without damage.” This principle recognizes that individuals can seek legal remedies for the violation of their legal rights, even when no actual harm or damage has occurred. In this case, Bhim Singh’s right to vote was infringed when he was falsely imprisoned, and he was entitled to compensation, despite no actual harm caused by the denial of his vote.
Ashby v. White (1703) – Injuria Sine Damnum
Ashby v. White is a historic case that emphasizes the principle of “Injuria Sine Damnum.” This principle signifies that legal injury, or the violation of a legal right, is sufficient to initiate a tort claim, even if no actual damage or financial loss is incurred. In this case, Mr. Ashby’s right to vote was unlawfully denied, constituting a legal injury that entitled him to seek compensation.
Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club (1933) – Volenti Non Fit Injuria
The case of Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club underscores the principle of “Volenti Non Fit Injuria,” which translates to “to one who is willing, no wrong is done.” This principle acknowledges that individuals who willingly expose themselves to known risks inherent in certain activities cannot later claim compensation for injuries resulting from those risks. In this case, spectators attending a motor racing event voluntarily placed themselves in a position of risk near the track, and the club was not liable for injuries caused by the inherent dangers of the activity.
Ram Ghulam and Anr. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (1949) – Defence of Sovereign Power
Ram Ghulam and Anr. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh exemplifies the application of the defense of sovereign power in tort law. This defense holds that actions carried out by the state or its agents in the exercise of sovereign authority, as mandated by law, are not subject to liability for negligence. In this case, the police’s seizure and subsequent loss of the plaintiff’s property were considered part of their lawful duties, absolving them from liability.
Tort law stands as a testament to the enduring pursuit of justice in civil society. Its evolution over the years has demonstrated its resilience in the face of societal transformations and complex legal challenges. This body of law, rooted in principles of equity and fairness, continues to provide a framework for addressing civil wrongs, ensuring that individuals have a path to seek redress and compensation. The uncodified nature of tort law, coupled with the influence of judge-made law, grants it the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances and remain relevant in contemporary times.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the exploration of tort law, its characteristics, and its development underscores its crucial role in the legal framework. Tort law, as discussed throughout this paper, addresses civil wrongs and provides remedies for individuals who have suffered harm due to the actions or inactions of others. It is a dynamic and evolving field of law that adapts to changing societal needs and circumstances, driven by judge-made law and influenced by various legal principles and doctrines.
The definitions of torts by prominent legal scholars and philosophers demonstrate the multifaceted nature of this area of law, emphasizing its focus on civil wrongs, legal rights, and remedies in the form of compensation. The key characteristics of tort law, such as its civil nature, infringement of legal rights, and reliance on precedents, distinguish it from criminal and contract law, highlighting its unique role in civil justice. Tort law’s uncodified nature and reliance on judge-made law offer both advantages and disadvantages. Its flexibility allows it to adapt to evolving circumstances and emerging legal issues. However, this flexibility can also lead to unpredictability in legal outcomes.
In the Indian context, tort law remains primarily uncodified, with judge-made law playing a significant role in its development. The principles of negligence, strict liability, and vicarious liability have been firmly established through Indian judicial decisions, reflecting the adaptability of tort law to local legal needs. As society continues to evolve, tort law will undoubtedly remain a cornerstone of the legal framework, ensuring that individuals have recourse when their rights are infringed upon.
REFERENCES
- http://student.manupatra.com/Academic/Abk/Law-of-Torts/chapter1.htm
- Definition of Torts and its characteristics (ipleaders.in)
0 Comments