You are on page 1of 18

Meaning of Tort

The word Tort is derived from a Latin word 'Tortus' which means 'twisted' or 'cooked act'. In English it
means, 'wrong'. The Expression 'Tort' is of French Origin.
The term 'Tort' means a wrongful act committed by a person, causing injury or damage to another,
thereby the injured institutes (files) an action in Civil Court for a remedy viz., unliquidated damages
or injunction or restitution of property or other available relief. Unliquidated damages means the
amount of damages to be fixed or determined by the Court.
The person who commits or is guilty of a tort is called a "tortfeasor". (Gordon v. Lee, 133 Me.

361, 178 A. 353, 355)

The person who suffered injury or damage by a tortfeasor is called injured or aggrieved.

Tort is a common law term and its equivalent in Civil Law is "Delict".

In general, the victim of a tortious act is the plaintiff in a tort case.

As a general rule, all persons have the capacity to sue and be sued in a tort.

Tort Law provides an avenue for an injured person of a remedy. It does not provide a
guarantee of recovery.

Types of Wrongs
Wrong can be of two types - Public and Private. Tort is a Private Wrong, whereas Crime is a Public
Wrong. Torts are tried in Civil Courts.
Wrong

Public wrong - These are acts that are tried in Criminal Courts and are punishable
under the Penal Law (such as the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in India)

Private wrong - These are acts against an individual person or a person within a
community and are tried in Civil Courts.

Chapter 2: Constituents
of a Tort
september 22, 2015 by admin leave a comment

1.

INTRODUCTION

The previous chapter introduced you to the concept of a tort. It is the failure to perform
a legal duty ( A legal duty is the duty that the law requires us to do. And if we fail to
perform our legal duty, it entails consequences. These consequences are referred to as
liability. When you are answerable for a wrong committed by you and the law can take
action against you, it is called liability). As we have discussed, we have many duties and
failure to perform all of these duties will not lead to a tort. When you do not go to pray,
you have not performed your religious duty. But that does not make you accountable
before the law. It has to be a legal duty which is breached.( A breach means not obeying
and breaking a law either by not doing something that the law requires you to do or by
doing something that must not be done). Legal rights and duties are correlated. We all
have rights and at the same time we need to ensure that we do not take away or violate
someone elses rights. This is our legal duty. When we fail to perform or incorrectly
perform our legal duties, we end up violating someone elses rights and in turn commit
a tort. This chapter talks about the different elements required for an act to be a tort.
2. THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A TORT

Tort law is there to make the people adhere to the reasonable and appropriate behavior
that is expected of them. It is there to make people respect the rights of other people
around them. The elements required for any act to be a tort are as follows:
1.

Wrongful act

2.

Damage( Legal injury)

Now, explaining them in detail,


1.

Wrongful act

A wrongful act is any act which is tortuous ( it is an infringement upon another


persons legal rights). We all have not only rights but also corresponding legal duties.
This duty can be either in the form of doing an act or it may be from refraining from an

act. If this duty is not performed it becomes a wrongful act giving rise to a legal injury
which in turn gives rise to a claim in torts and an action for damages.
A wrongful act must be committed for a tort to take place .It can happen in two ways:
1.

Commission of the act: Such an act which is actually committed.


When you play music at a very loud volume and disturb others. The
disturbance has been overtly done.

2.

Omission: This includes acts which should have been done but
were not done.

Eg. The municipality dug a hole on the road and it failed to either put a barrier around
it or a signboard stating about it. At night a person falls into it. This is a tort due to
omission.
Any tortuous act is either commission or omission or a combination of both of these.
And in questions you need to figure out whether the act falls under either one.
1.

Damage or injury caused:

Damage is the harm or loss suffered by a person because of a tortuous act of another
person. Damage to a person can be in terms of loss of money, service, health (physical or
emotional health), etc. There are two maxims that help us to determine whether a party
has a valid claim in tort law i.e. whether he can take a person to court for a tort. They
are :
1.

Injuria Sine Damnum

2.

Damnum Sine Injuria

Before we proceed to the meaning of these maxims, let us understand what injuria and
damnum mean.

1.

Injuria: Injuria is referred to as the legal injury. It is the


violation of the plaintiffs legal right irrespective of the fact that it
is a very trivial infringement or that it does not cause any real harm
to the plaintiff(injured party.) When a person fails to perform his
duty or does something that he is not supposed to do, his act
causes injury. And even if there is no actual damage, it is enough if
the person violates another persons legal right. A crosses over a
barren piece of land belonging to B , it is the tort of trespass. In
this case, no actual harm has been caused but there is a legal
injury. So, damages will be awarded.

2.Damnum: Damnum is referred to as the damage or harm caused. Any loss whether
in terms of health ,money, comfort or in any other form comes under damnum. It is the
effect felt by the plaintiff due to the act of the defendant which had injuria.
Injuria sine damnum
This phrase consists of three words injuria (injury),sine(without) and
damnum(damage) It means a legal injury without any actual damages. It is the
violation of a persons legal right without causing any real harm or damage. This is a
valid claim in tort law. In such cases the plaintiff can successfully sue the defendant for
violating his legal rights and no damages need to be proved.
To sum up, a person can sue as long as his legal right is violated irrespective of whether
or not actual damage is caused.
Let us take a few examples.

a.Tresspass to a persons property is an infringement of his legal right to property and is


actionable in itself. If you set foot on someones property and just walk over it, there is
no damage. But trespass does not require damage to be proved and the plaintiff will be

awarded damages. Tresspass also includes trespass to person such as assault, battery,
false imprisonment etc.
1.

Stopping someone from going in a particular direction using a


particular route. Here, even if an alternative route is there and the
person reaches his destination, it does not matter. He can still sue
because he has a right to use whichever route he likes.

2.

Stopping someone to address a gathering is the violation of a


persons legal right as well as the fundamental right to freedom of
speech and expression. So, even if in the end the message is
circulated using a pamphlet and no damage is caused, it does not
matter. He can still sue successfully because damage is not
required. What is required is the violation of a legal right.

Damnum sine injuria


Simply put it means damage without any legal injury. In this case a person ends up
causing damage to a person without violating his legal rights and without falling short
of his own legal duty. There is a damage caused but there is no remedy available for the
other person. In cases of damnum sine injuria ,a person cannot sue the wrongdoer
because he has not violated any legal rights. And thus, there is no remedy available to
the plaintiff.
So, the rule is A legal injury is a must otherwise a person cannot sue no matter how
much damage is caused by the act.
Example : Honey likes to sing while having a bath every morning and this disturbs his
neighbour Vivek who has really sensitive ears and is trying to meditate and is unable to
concentrate due to Honeys singing. In this case, Vivek will not be able to sue Honey
because he is singing at a reasonable volume. There is no legal injury caused, so even if
there is any damage , there lies no remedy.
3. IS HARM OR INJURY NECESSARY FOR AN ACT TO BE A TORT?
No, harm is not necessary for an action to be a tort. There are three kinds of torts
recognised by law on this basis:
Torts actionable per se.
These are those torts which happen when a person infringes upon another persons
rights by not performing his legal duty. These torts are actionable by themselves . i.e.
they do not require any harm or damage to be done. Here, again I will give the popular
example of tort of trespass. You just walk over a persons land and that is it. No harm is

caused. Yet, it is a tort and is actionable in itself. There is no need for damage to be
proved.

Torts that are co-relative to the harm caused


These are torts in which a person not only fails to carry out his legal duty, but also
causes harm/damage at the same time. In such cases, compensation is provided
according to the damage caused. Compensation in such cases tries to restore the
plaintiff to the original position.
Example: In negligence there is damage caused. When a person is driving a car at a
greater speed than is reasonable and he causes an accident, he has failed to care for his
legal duty by performing a negligent act. At the same time, he causes harm to the other
people who are injured in the accident. In such a case, compensation will be given so as
to restore the plaintiffs to the original position.( It will cover the medical bill and the
losses caused to the injured people) .

Torts for which there lies no action

Sometimes, there is no remedy available when a tort is committed even if there is a


violation of a persons legal right and damages have occurred. This seems a little unjust
but some torts have no remedy and recourse to law will not yield any result. This is best
illustrated by the torts which are done by the state while discharging sovereign
functions. If the government takes away a persons land in a border area for providing a
training field to the soldiers, in such a case even though the persons legal right is
violated and he has suffered damage, he cannot sue the State or the Army as they are
performing a sovereign function of protecting the country and defending it in wartime.
( A sovereign function is an exclusive function of the state which cannot be performed
by a private individual or organisation.
Example :Space, atomic energy, defence, police ,etc.)
In most such cases a person cannot sue because a general defence operates against him.
One other area where a person cannot sue for a tort against him is in case of an illegal
act.
Example, Don and Rajan decide to blow up the Parliament, and while doing so Don
hurts Rajan . In this case, Rajan will not be able to sue Don because they were doing an
unlawful act.

4. REMEDY IN TORTS

Tort law grants remedy to a person not just because he/ she has suffered damages but
because the persons legal rights have been violated or because someone has failed to
perform his legal duty. That is why damage may or may not be there, as long as a legal
injury is there, a remedy is available. The remedy is in the form of unliquidated
damages. In certain cases, it is in the form of an injunction order passed by the court
and in certain cases, it is in the form of restitution.
To make concepts more clear, let us understand some basics well.
When a case is filed, it is in the form of
Plaintiff vs Defendant
1.

Plaintiff and Defendant:

Plaintiff is the person to whom the damage or injury is caused. The plaintiff is the party
that brings up the case and sues for damages. To sue means to file a case against the
wrongdoer and drag him to the court.
Defendant is the person against whom the case is brought to court. It is the party being
sued.
Example:
A is walking on the road and he falls into a ditch dug by B. He brings up a case against
B for being negligent and not putting up a signboard or light for any precaution. Here,
it is A who brings up the case. He is the person seeking damages for his injury. He is the
plaintiff. And B is the party against whom the suit has been instituted. Therefore, B is
the defendant here.

1.

Tortfeasor: The person who commits the wrongful act is called the
tortfeasor or wrongdoer. If X trespasses into his neighbours garden,
X is the tortfeasor.

1.

Tortuous Act: The wrongful act which causes legal injury to


another person and gives rise to a tort is called the tortuous act.

When Sumit plays music at an unreasonable volume and disturbs


the entire neighbourhood, then he commits a tort and he is called
the tortfeasor, his act of playing music at a very high volume is
called the tortuous act.

5. DAMAGE AND DAMAGES

Damage refers to the harm or loss suffered by a person because of the wrongful act
committed by another person.
The compensation that the court awards to the plaintiff for the legal injury or damage
suffered is referred to as damages. Damages can be in the form of money, an injunction
order passed by the court or restitution. And damages depend upon the amount of harm
caused to the person. We will talk about the types of damages and its different aspects in
detail in the chapter on Remedy in torts. Time to look at an example now.
Bhim punches Karan without any reason and hurts him badly.The hurt is the physical
damage caused. Bhim has committed the tort of battery against Karan and when Karan
brings a case, Bhim will have to compensate for the physical as well as the legal injury
caused by paying compensation to Karan. This compensation is to restore Karan to the
original position as would be if the tort would never have happened. This compensation
is called Damages.

6. INJUNCTION

An injunction is a judicial remedy issued in order to prohibit a party from doing or


continuing to do a certain activity. It is a court order by which an individual is required
to perform, or is restrained from performing a particular act. It is an extraordinary
remedy reserved for special circumstances in which the temporary preservation of

status quo is necessary. An injunction is ordinarily and primarily elicited from other
proceedings. For example, if a landlord brings an action against the tenant for dumping
of waste on his land, then the issue is to protect the landlords interest in the ownership
of the land. In such a case the court can pass an injunction order against the tenant to
not use the property in such a way that is harmful. The injunction is thus an ancillary
remedy in an action against the tenant. Whether or not injunction will be granted
depends on the facts of the case and also, on the courts.
Injunctions (for our purpose) are of four types:
1.

Preliminary or Temporary injunction: It is invoked for immediate


relief to preserve the subject matter of the injunction in its existing
condition.

2.

Preventive injunction: It is a prohibitory order which is issued to


defendant to refrain from doing a certain act so as to stop any
further damage.

Example: If a person plays very loud music everyday and disturbs the entire
neighbourhood, the court may ask him to stop playing loud music at all.
3. Mandatory injunction: It is issued by the courts to make a person
perform a positive act. Example If a structure is encroaching on
someones property, the courts may ask it to be removed.
3. Permanent/Perpetual injunction: It is granted to finally dispose of a
suit for injunction.

For instance, the courts issued an injunction to stop the illegal practice of medicine.

7. RESTITUTION

Restitution is a remedy that aims to restore to the innocent party the gains which
someone else has made at the affected parties cost. When a court orders restitution, it
orders the defendant to return back the gains he has received from the other party. It is
different from compensation as in compensation, the court orders the defendant to pay
the plaintiff for the loss suffered. And in restitution, the court orders the thing itself to
be returned back. But both aim to restore the affected party to the original position.
Restitution is in place so that no one can benefit unjustly at the cost of another. Here, it
is important to note that in torts the remedy is mainly in the form of compensation. An
injunction is granted in certain cases only and not all. And restitution is granted mostly
in contract law.

Raju, a boy of 14 goes to a nearby shop and takes a cycle. The owner of the shop Mr.
Gupta knows Rajus family. Raju tells him that his brother will pay for the cycle and he
takes it and goes away. When Rajus brother goes to the shop and Mr Gupta asks him to
pay, he refuses saying that Raju is responsible for his act.Mr Gupta brings a case
against Raju.The court will order him to return the cycle back to the shopowner. This is
restitution. The court will order him to return it back following the principle that no
one should be allowed to benefit art the cost of others. This is also to ensure that the law
is fair to everyone.

POINTS TO REMEMBER
1.

The essentials of a tort are :

2.

A wrongful act which may be in the form of a commission(doing a


wrongful act ) or an omission( failure to do an act required to be
done)

3.

There must be a legal injury.

An act which is a legal injury may or may not have any accompanying damage with it
but it will still be compensated for as it is an infringement of a legal right.
2. Two terms associated with damages are :
2. Injuria sine damnum: Acts which cause a legal injury without any
damages. There is a remedy available and the wrongdoer will be
held liable.
2. Damnum sine injuria: It means a damage is caused without cauing
any legal injury. No action for this lies in tort law.
2. Malice and intention are usually irrelevant in torts. Only some torts
like malicious prosecution require a malicious intent.
2. Plaintiff is the person who sues .The plaintiff is the injured party.
2. Defendant is the party that is sued. The suit is instituted against
him.
2. Tortfeasor is the person who commits the tort.
2. A tort is a violation of a right in rem. A right in rem is a right
vested in a determinate person, either as a member of the
community or personally.

A contract is a violation of a right in personam. A right in personam is a right that


one has against any determinate person, and the world at large is not concerned.

8. Injunction is an ancillary remedy granted in certain cases.


8. Restitution is a remedy where a person is restored back to the
original position. The courts order restitution to ensure that no one
benefits at the cost of others.
8. Damage is the harm caused while damages means compensation or
relief granted by the courts to the injured party.

Constituents of Tort
The law of tort is an instrument to enforce reasonable behavior and respect the rights and interests
of one another. A protected interest gives rise to a legal right, which in turn gives rise to a
corresponding legal duty. An act, which infringes a legal right, is wrongful act but not every
wrongful act is a tort.
To constitute a tort or civil injury therefore:
There must be a wrongful act or omission.
The wrongful act or omission must give rise to legal damage or actual damage and;
The wrongful act must be of such a nature as to give rise to a legal remedy in the form of an action
for damages.
The wrongful act or omission may however not necessarily cause actual damage to the plaintiff in
order to be actionable. Certain civil wrongs are actionable even though no damage may have been
suffered by the plaintiff.
01. Wrongful Act
An act or omission that prejudicially affect ones legal right. Such legally violative wrongful act is
called as actus reus. Thus, liability for a tort arises when the wrongful act amounts to either an
infringement of a legal private right or a breach.
An act, which at first, appears to be innocent may become tortuous if it invades the legal right of
another person e.g. the erection in ones own land which obstructs light to a neighbors house.
Liability for a tort arises when the wrongful act amounts to an infringement of a legal right or a
breach.
02. Damage
The sum of money awarded by court to compensate damage is called damages. Damage means the
loss or harm caused or presumed to be suffered by a person as a result of some wrongful act of
another. Legal damage is not the same as actual damage.
The real significance of legal damage is illustrated by two maxims namely:
Injuria sine damno and Damnum sine injuria
Injuria sine damno (Injury without damage)
It means violating of a legal right without causing any harm, loss or damage to the plaintiff. There
are two kinds of torts: firstly those torts which are actionable per se, i.e. actionable without the
proof of any damage or loss. For instance, trespass to land, is actionable even though no damage

has been caused as a result of the trespass.


Secondly, the torts which are actionable only on the proof of some damage caused by an act. For
successful actions the only thing which has to be proved is that the plaintiffs legal right has been
violated, i.e. there is injuria.
Case Law: Refusal to register a voter was held as and injury per-se even when the favorite
candidate won the election - Ashby Vs. White (1703). This rule is based on the old maxim of law,
Ubi jus ibi remedium, which means that where there is a right, there is a remedy.
Damnum sine injuria (Damage without injury)
It means There may be an injury inflicted without any act of injustice. There is another term like
it that is damnum absque injuria, which means damage or harm without an injury in the legal
sense. In other words a loss or injury to someone which does not give that person a right to sue the
person causing the loss.
Case Laws:
In the case of Mayor & Bradford Corporation Vs. Pickles (1895), Pickles was annoyed by the refusal
of Bradford Corporation to purchase his land for their water undertaking. Out of spite, he sank a
shaft on his land, which had the effect of discoloring and diminishing the water of the Corporation,
which percolated through his land. The House of Lords held that the action of Pickles was lawful
and no matter how ill his motive might be he had a right to act on his land in any manner that so
pleases him.
In the case of Mogul Steamship Co. Vs. Me-Gregory (1892). Certain ship owners combined together.
In order to drive a ship-owner out of trade by offering cheap freight charges to customers who
would deal with them. The plaintiff who was driven out of business sued the ship-owner, for loss
caused to him by their act. The court held that a trader who is ruined by legitimate competition of
his rivals could not get damages in tort.
03. Remedy Development of Ubi jus ibi Remedium
The law of torts is said to be a development of the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium (there is no wrong
without a remedy). Whenever the common law gives a right or prohibits an injury, it also gives a
remedy. It is an elementary maxim of equity jurisprudence that there is no wrong without a
remedy.
The maxim means only that legal wrong and legal remedy are correlative terms.
A tort is a civil injury, but all civil injuries are not torts. The wrongful act must come under the
category of wrongs for which the remedy is a civil action for damages. The essential remedy for a
tort is an action for damages, but there are other remedies also e.g., injunction, restitution, etc.
Case Law:
In the case of Abbot v. Sullivan, the court held that there is a right to receive a time-barred debt
but there is no remedy to recover it.

Malice is a legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party. Malice is
either expressed or implied. Malice is expressed when there is manifested a deliberate
intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being.
Malice is a legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party. Malice is
either expressed or implied. Malice is expressed when there is manifested a deliberate intention
unlawfully to take away the life of a human being. Malice is implied when no considerable
provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and
malignant heart. Cal. Pen. Code 188. Malice, in a legal sense, may be inferred from the
evidence and imputed to the defendant, depending on the nature of the case.
In many kinds of cases, malice must be found to exist in order to convict (for example malice is
an element of the crime of arson in many jurisdictions). In civil law cases, a finding of malice
allows for the award of greater damages, or for punitive damages. The legal concept of malice is
most common in Anglo-American law, and in legal systems derived from the English common
law system.

Difference Between Motive and


Intention
Categorized under Words | Difference Between Motive and
Intention
Motive vs Intention
Motive and intention are both aspects in the field of law and justice.
They are also associated with a suspect with the particular purposes
of proving or disproving a particular case or crime.
Motive refers to the reason or the why the crime was committed.
It is often the background of the suspect in committing the alleged
crime. As a background, motive comes before intent. Unlike intent,
motive can be determined, but its existence doesnt exactly prove
guilt. It can be refuted by evidence or an alibi on a suspected
persons part (often referred to as a person of interest in criminal
jargon). A motive is often based on the probability that the person

has reason to commit the crime but no supporting evidence that the
motive was carried out in the action. Motive is an initial factor but
not a conclusive action to link a person to the crime.
Motive is also based in the realm of psychology. Motive, as a
psychological term, is also known as the drive and is often classified
into two main types the physiological motives and the
psychological or social motives.
Intent, on the other hand, is the supposed action or purpose of the
crime. It is the result of the motive and has a higher level of
culpability since a harmful action was committed. Intent is
characterized

as

deliberate

action

and

conscious

effort

to break the law and commit the offence. Intent resides in the field
of law where it is defined as the planning and longing to perform an
act. It is present in both criminal law and tort law.
To be specific, a scenario of intent in criminal law often involves the
prosecutor in a court of law filing a charge of a crime against a
suspect with veritable motive and intent. Since the intent is the
final goal of the motive, it needs to be proven in order to prove that
the suspect did to commit the crime. Intent has more legal standing
and weight compared to motive in a court of law and is a
requirement to make a case along with the means and opportunity.
As for criminal intent, there are four levels as described in the Moral
Penal

Code:

(1) Purposely At this level, the suspect expresses his purpose to


commit

specific

crime

against

particular

person.

(2) Knowingly The suspect has knowledge and consciousness that


his actions will be considered a crime in the eyes of the law.
However, the suspect can inflict a crime on a person who is not his

intended

victim.

(3) Recklessly The suspect knows the risks involved in his actions
and the situation but disregards the risk and continues to perform
the

crime

regardless.

(4) Negligently The suspect does not take into account various
possible scenarios that will happen during the action of the crime
which often leads to losing control of the situation and probably
causing more casualties.
Summary:
1.Motive and intent are very closely related to each other. Motive
precedes

intent

in

terms

of

action.

2.Motive is mainly in the field of psychology whereas intent is


nestled

in

the

field

of

law.

3.Motive is the reason behind the intent while intent is the


background

of

the

committed

crime.

4.Both motive and intent should be proven beyond a reasonable


doubt, but intent has a weightier standing and bearing in a court of
law

compared

to

motive.

5.Intent is part of the three aspects to prove the crime (with means
and

opportunity)

while

motive

can

stand

for

itself.

6.Motive applies to all persons of interest which can include the


suspect. However, intent can be solely focused on the suspect.
7.Motive is very arbitrary. It cannot prove or justify guilt or the
actions pertaining to the crime. A person with a motive can be
eliminated or solidified with the help of the evidence or alibi. In the
case of intent, the evidence or alibi solidified the case against the
suspect.

Tort is Civil Wrong, in other word a tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a civil
wrong that unfairly causes someone else to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal
liability for the person who commits the tortious act, called a tortfeasor.
Tort is a civil wrong but all civil wrongs do not come within the ambit of tort. There
are other kind of civil wrongs also, like breach of contract, breach of trust. So whenever a
civil wrong is there we must see, whether the wrong is covered by any specific law, if not
then it would be covered by law of torts. Where a single action of the wrongdoer results
in two or more torts, as well as covered under any of the specific law, provided for
recognized category of civil wrong, the victim can get redress either under torts or claim
under any other specific law provided therein. It is notable that claimant can not claim
twice under different branch of law, if cause of action is a single civil wrong.
The main characteristics of tort are:
1. Civil Wrong:
Tort is a civil wrong in the sense that it is a wrong against the person and not the
society at large. However tort is different from other civil wrongs such as breach
ofcontract or breach of trust. Remedy under law of torts is based on common law
and not on any specific statue. In case wrongful act of a person results in tort as well as
criminal wrongs then both remedies would be available to the victim.
2. Infringement of a legal right:
It is essential that there should be a violation of a legally protected right. Social and
moral wrongs do not constitute a tort. Thus if there is a violation of legally protected
right then the aggrieved party can put the legal machinery in motion to claim
compensation from the wrong doer.
3. Remedy:
Remedy is the gist of tort and it is available in the form of unliquidated damages.
Except that it's remedy in the form of injunction and restitution is also available in
suitable cases.
Difference between tort and crime:
The wrongs are divisible into two sorts or species, private wrongs and public wrongs. The
former are an infringement or deprivation of the private or civil right belonging to
individuals, considered as individual and are thereupon termed civil injuries. The later
are breach and violation of public rights and duties which affect the whole community
therefore harsh action is provided against wrongdoer.
Since tortuous wrong is a civil wrong therefore aggrieved person himself files the case
against the wrongdoer. However in case of criminal Offence State prosecutes the
accused. As far as the remedy is concerned, in tort, wrongdoer compensates the victim by
paying him damages for the loss suffered due to violation of his legal right.
While, in criminal wrongs, wrongdoer is punished by the state. Mostly it consists of
corporeal punishment against the accused. But in some exceptional cases as provided

U/S 357, Cr. PC 1973, a criminal court may also direct the accused to pay compensation
to the aggrieved parties in suitable cases.
Similarly, in civil law also, detention may be made out as in case of execution of decree
under the Civil Procedure Code. As for example, if a person disobeys an injunction of the
court, he may be punished with imprisonment in civil proceedings.
Sometimes a single act may result in tort as well as in crime. Under these circumstances,
remedies are available concurrently. The wrongdoer may be held punishable for criminal
wrong and may also be ordered to pay compensation.
Example of Tort: Nuisance, Negligence etc..
Example of Crime: Murder, Rape etc..
Tort, means the violation of legal right vested in other person or in other words its a breach of a
legal duty which the wrongdoer owed towards the victim. Thus the presence of legal right and
failure to obey the legal duty to protect that right constitute tort.
Tort is a civil wrong but all civil wrongs do not come within the ambit of tort. There are other
kind of civil wrongs also, like breach of contract, breach of trust. So whenever a civil wrong is
there we must see, whether the wrong is covered by any specific law, if not then it would be
covered by law of torts. Where a single action of the wrongdoer results in two or more torts, as
well as covered under any of the specific law, provided for recognized category of civil wrong, the
victim can get redress either under torts or claim under any other specific law provided therein. It
is notable that claimant can not claim twice under different branch of law, if cause of action is a
single civil wrong.
The main characteristics of tort are:
1. Civil Wrong:
Tort is a civil wrong in the sense that it is a wrong against the person and not the society at large.
However tort is different from other civil wrongs such as breach of contract or breach of trust.
Remedy under law of torts is based on common law and not on any specific statue. In case
wrongful act of a person results in tort as well as criminal wrongs then both remedies would be
available to the victim.
2. Infringement of a legal right:
It is essential that there should be a violation of a legally protected right. Social and moral wrongs
do not constitute a tort. Thus if there is a violation of legally protected right then the aggrieved
party can put the legal machinery in motion to claim compensation from the wrong doer.
3. Remedy:

Remedy is the gist of tort and it is available in the form of unliquidated damages. Except that it's
remedy in the form of injunction and restitution is also available in suitable cases.
Difference between tort and crime:
According to Blackstone, wrongs are divisible into two sorts or species, private wrongs and public
wrongs. The former are an infringement or deprivation of the private or civil right belonging to
individuals, considered as individual and are thereupon termed civil injuries. The later are breach
and violation of public rights and duties which affect the whole community therefore harsh action
is provided against wrongdoer.
Since tortuous wrong is a civil wrong therefore aggrieved person himself files the case against the
wrongdoer. However in case of criminal Offence State prosecutes the accused. As far as the
remedy is concerned, in tort, wrongdoer compensates the victim by paying him damages for the
loss suffered due to violation of his legal right.
While, in criminal wrongs, wrongdoer is punished by the state. Mostly it consists of corporeal
punishment against the accused. But in some exceptional cases as provided U/S 357, Cr. PC 1973,
a criminal court may also direct the accused to pay compensation to the
aggrieved parties in suitable cases.
Similarly, in civil law also, detention may be made out as in case of execution of decree under the
Civil Procedure Code. As for example, if a person disobeys an injunction of the court, he may be
punished with imprisonment in civil proceedings.
Sometimes a single act may result in tort as well as in crime. Under these circumstances,
remedies are available concurrently. The wrongdoer may be held punishable for criminal wrong
and may also be ordered to pay compensation.
For example, A digs a ditch on the public road resulting in inconvenience to the public at large.
Here A has committed the crime of public nuisance. If a passerby falls into the ditch, A will be
deemed to have committed the tort of private nuisance as well. Thus here A will be liable under
civil as well as criminal law.

You might also like