Law of Torts,Legal Maxim

1. DR.P.R.L.RAJAVENKATESAN
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR(SENIOR)
VIT LAW SCHOOL
CHENNAI
LAW OF TORTS

2. THEORIES
 WIDER AND NARROWER THEORY
 WINFIELD AND POLLOCK
 All injuries done to another person are torts
unless there is justifications recognized by law.
 When a tort is specific, it is narrowed down to
a particular wrong. But when it is not specific,
and considered at a wider level that all harms
without legal justifications are torts, then, it is
in a wider sense.

3. THEORIES
 PIGEON HOLE THEORY
 Salmond and Glanville Williams.
 Law of Torts consist of a ‘net-set’ of pigeon
holes, each containing a specific tort such as
assault, battery, deceit, slander, negligence,
etc., If the defendant’s wrong does not fit in
any of these pigeon holes, then he has
committed ‘no tort’.

4. DIFFERENT BETWEEN TORT AND CRIME
 TORT
 PRIVATE WRONG
 MENS REA NOT
NECESSARY
 THE SUIT IS FOR
DAMAGES
 COMPOUNDING
POSSIBLE
 NOT CODIFIED
CRIME
 PUBLIC WRONG
 MENS REA
 THE SUIT IS FOR
PUNISHMENT
 COMPOUNDING NOT
POSSIBLE
 CODIFIED

5. TORT CONTRACT
 RIGHT IN REM
 UNLIQUIDATED
DAMAGES
 DOCTRINE OF
PRIVITY OF
CONTRACT NOT
APPLICABLE
 MOTIVE IS
MATERIAL
 RIGHT IN
PERSONAM
 LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES
 DOCTRINE OF
PRIVITY OF
CONTRACT APPLY
 MOTIVE IS
IMMATERIAL
DIFFERENT BETWEEN TORT AND
CONTRACT

6. DAMNUM SINE INJURIA
 DAMNUM-Damage-loss Of
Money,health,service
 INJURIA-Infringement of Legal Rights
or Breach of Legal Rights
 Damages or loss without injury
 Gloucester V. Grammer School 1441 YB
11 Henry IV , 47
 Bona fide competition can afford no
ground of action.

7. Mayor of Bradford v. Pickles,1895 AC 587.
 Defendant were annoyed when the
Bradford corporation refused to purchase
his land in connection with the scheme of
water supply for the inhabitants of the town.
 In revenge, defendant sank a shaft on his
own land and which diminished and
discoloured the underground water flowing
to the land of plaintiff
 No cause of action

8. Mogul Steamship Co v. McGregor ,Gow & Co.,
1892 AC 25
 Ship-owner, who shipped tea from China to
English
 Rival ship-owner
 Special Concession to Customer
 Plaintiff is not entitled to get damages.
 Competition with deliberate infliction of
harm affords no ground of action.

9. P.Seetharamayya v. Mahalkshmiamma,AIR
1958 AP 103
 Defendant tried to ward-off the flow of water
into their lands from stream by digging a trench
and putting up a bund on their lands.
 Rain water flowed to the plaintiff’s land caused
damage.
 filed case for Rs.300
 The Court held that Owner of the land has a
right to build a fence upon his ground to
prevent damages by the overflow of the river.

10. Anand Singh v. Ram Chandra,AIR 1953 MP 28
 Defendant built pucca walls on his land
 Water between defendant house and
plaintiff house
 Suit for Rs.100
 Plaintiff has not got any easementary
rights
 The rule of law is that the exercise of an
ordinary right is no wrong even if it
cause damage.

11. Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Board of Highschool
and Intermediate Education,AIR 1981 All 46.
 Appellant –student had suffered loss of
one year due to his being detained for
shortage of attention but his detention
was found by the court to be illegal.
 The principal not having maintained
the attendance register according to the
regulation of the board, it was held that
the suit for compensation for the loss
suffered by the student not maintaible.

12. INJURIA SINE DAMNUM
 Its reverse to the Damnum Sine injuria.
 Infringement of private legal rights without
damage or loss.
 Ashby v. White (1703) 2 Lord Rayam 938.
 Chief Justice Holt said: a man shall have an
action against another for riding over his
ground , though it does him no damage for it
is invasion on his property.

13. INJURIA SINE DAMNUM
 Kali Kishen Tagore v. Jadoo Lal Mullick 61 A 190.
 The plaintiff and defendant were proprietors of
opposite banks of a water channel.
 The plaintiff sued defendant for an injunction for
the demolition of a wall which the defendant had
built for the protection of his own land, but which
encroached to the extent of about 6 feet on to the
bed of the channel.
 Calcutta High court-plaintiff succeeded
 Privy Council reversed.

14. INJURIA SINE DAMNUM
 Chunni Lal v. Kripa Shanker, (1906) 8
Bom LR 838.
 It was held that “if the refusal is not in
good faith , which implies due care and
diligence, the person refusing to register
the vote will be liable”.

15. Foundation of Tortious Liability
 All injuries done by one person to
another are torts, unless some
justification recognised by law.
 There is a definite number of torts
outside which liability in tort does
not exist.

16. Foundation of Tortious Liability
 My duty is to hurt nobody by word or
deed.
 Honest Vivere –lead life free from
crime and scandal.
 Alterum non leadere- hurt nobody by
word or deed and be true and just in all
your dealing

17. Foundation of Tortious Liability
 Salmond said that “Just as criminal
law consist of a body of rules
establishing specific offences , so
the law of torts consists of a body of
rules establishing specific injuries ”

18. Malice
 Act done in bad intention
 Evil intent
 Wrongful act
 done intentionally without just cause or excuse
 defamation
 malicious prosecution
 Malice is essential in the torts of deceit , conspiracy,
malicious prosecution and injurious falsehood.

19. MOTIVE
 Motive means ulterior intent or inner drive which
signifies the reason for a man’s conduct.
 Chief moving force and moves the man towards a
particular action.
 Bradford Corporation v. Pickle 1895 AC 587
 Nankee v. Ah Fong
 Motive of the person doing the act is immaterial.
 if it is lawful act, ill motive might be, he has right to
do it. If its an unlawful act, however good motive
might be, he would have no right to do it. Motive and
intention in such a question is absolutely irrelevant.

20. MOTIVE
 Motive became relevant in the tort of defamation
when qualified privilege or fair comment is pleaded.
 Collector of Sea Customs,Madras
v.P.Chidamparam,ILR 1876 (1) Mad 89.

21. MALFEASANCE
 Commission of an illegal / unlawful act.
 Tresspass-which are actionable per se and do not
require proof of intention or motive.
 Jai Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujrat,
(1994) 4 SCC 1.
People in public office
 Misfeasance refers to improper performance of a
lawful act, such as, negligence

22. Non-feasance
 Closely related to misfeasance, is the failure to
perform a duty , which he or she is legally obligated
to do.
 Proksch v.Bottendorf 218 Lowa 1376 (1934)
 The supreme court of Lowa adopted these words-
Malfeasance,Misfeasance and non-feasance.
Malfeasance is the doing of an act which a person
ought not to do at all, Misfeasance is the improper
doing of an act which a person might lawfully do and
nonfeasance is the omission of an act which a person
ought to do.

23. Intention
 Intention is the state of mind
 Wrongdoer intent to commit act
 Motive is the ulterior object for which the act is
done whereas intention is the immediate object.
 Wilkinson v.Downstion
 defendant jokingly told the plaintiff that her
husband met with an accident and his legs were
broken and hospitalized. Plaintiff suffered nervous
shock.
 Defendant liable irrespective of intention
 nuisance ,injury to person property,copyright