Law of Torts

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

A Study material submitted for LL.B. First Semester
Submitted by:
Miss Nisha Alagh
Assistant Professor of Law
Siddhartha Law College, Dehradun

Session 2013-2014
Page 1 of 48


PAPER CODE: LL.B.- 101
MAXIMUM MARKS: 30+70=100
TERM-END EXAMINATION: 70 MARKS
TIME ALLOWED: 3 HRS.

INTERNAL ASSESSMENT: 30 MARKS
OBJECTIVE OF THE COURSE: Tort action is being used against service providers,
manufacturers and industrial units for products which are injurious to human beings wherein the
emphasis is placed on extending the principles of torts not only to acts which are harmful but
also failure to comply with changing standards and product specifications due to rapid
advancements in science and technology. Product liability is now taking a new dimension in
developed economies world over. The law of Torts finds significance in the emerging law of
consumer protection in modern times of consumer concern of goods and services. It is applicable
in cases of disputes concerning quality of goods supplied and services offered in cases of damage
suffered by the consumers.
MODULE-I:
Introduction and Principles of Liability in Tort.
a) Nature and Definition of Tort.
b) Development of Tort action in England and India- Tort distinguished from Contract, QuasiContract and Crime.
c) Constituent of Tort- Wrongful Act, Damage and Remedy.
d) Liabilities- Strict Liability and Absolute Liability. Vicarious Liability- scope and justification.
e) Conditions of Liability including damnum sine injuria, injuria sine damno; Remoteness of
Damages. Maxims: Ubi jus ibi remedium, Res ipsa loquitor, Volenti non fit injuria etc.
f) Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity.
MODULE-II: Justification in Tort/ General Defenses
a) Volenti non-fit injuria.
b) Necessity,
c) Plaintiffs default./ Plaintiff the wrong doer
d) Act of God.
e) Inevitable accidents.
f) Private defenses.
g) Judicial and Quasi- Judicial Acts.
h) Parental and Quasi-parental authority.
MODULE-III: Specific Torts
a) Defamation- Libel, Slander including Defenses in an action for Defamation.
b) Negligence including Contributory Negligence and other defenses.
Page 2 of 48

c) Nuisance.
d) Assault, Battery and mayhem.
e) False imprisonment and malicious prosecution.
f) Nervous Shock.
g) Trespass to Person and Property.
h) Domestic Violence as a crime and tort.
i) Principles for the application of the rules and defenses- Enterprises engaged in hazardous
activities. (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India)
j) Salient features of Motor Vehicle Act, Accident Claims, Motor Vehicle Tribunal, Noise and Air
Pollution and Safety, Health and Environment issues.
MODULE-IV: Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
a) Aims and objective of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
b) Concept of a consumer and consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
c) Shift from Caveat Emptor to Caveat Venditor.
d) Consumer Protection Councils under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
MODULE-V: Redressal Mechanism
a) Redressal mechanism under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986- District Forum, the State
Commision and the National Commission.
b) Initiation of Proceedings. Grievances Redressal Procedure of Consumer Disputes Redressal
Agencies. Powers of CDRAs. Remedies available under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
SUGGESTED READINGS
1. The Law of Torts--- Ratanlal & Dhirajlal
2. Tort--- Winfield and Jolowicz.
3. Law of Torts--- R.K. Bangia.
4. Law of Consumer Protection in India--- Dr. D.N. Saraf.
5. Law of Consumer Protection in India--- Dr. Avtar Singh.
6. The Law of Consumer Protection in India--- Dr.Gurjeet Singh.
7. Law of Torts--- Salmond
ESSENTIAL CASE LAWS
1. Bhim Singh v. State of J & K and others.
2. Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar.
3. Rylands v. Fletcher 1868 LR HL, 330.
4. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 1987 1 SCC 395.
5. Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India AIR 1989 SC 248.
6. Donoghue v. Stevenson 1932 SC 31.
7. State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidyawati & Others AIR 1962 SC 1039.
8. M/s. Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P. AIR 1965 SC 1039.
9. Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspaper Ltd.
10. Bird v. Jones 1945 7 QB 742.
Page 3 of 48

11. Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (19494) ISCC 243.

12. A. C. Modagi v. cCrosswell Tailor, (1991) II CPJ 586.
13. Indian Medical Assn. v. V.P. Shantha (1995) 6 SCC 651.
14. Consumer Unity and Trust society v. St. of Rajasthan (1991) II CPJ 56 Raj.
Page 4 of 48

MODULE-I:
Introduction and Principles of Liability in Tort.
A tort is nothing but a twisted action. It is a civil wrong. When a person commits a wrong of
civil nature like causing nuisance to a neighbour or being negligent in his action it is called a
tort.
There are two schools of thought. Some people are of the view that it is the Law of Torts, there
being a specific body of wrongs and you need to fit in your own tort into one of them. The
counter view runs such that it is the Law of Tort and there are necessary ingredients to the
commission of a tort and once fulfilled, you have a tort.
When is a tort committed?
When a legal injury is caused to a person, a tort is said to have been committed. It is assumed
that every person owes a general duty of care to his neighbour. By neighbour we do not mean
the hot girl next door but it is any person who can be affected by your acts. When this duty of
care is breached then a tort or a civil wrong is committed. For example, Sandipan and Aymen are
neighbours. If Sandipan starts playing loud music in the middle of the night such that it creates
nuisance and Aymen is disturbed then the latters legal right is injured and there lies a cause of
action against Sandipan.
Two principles:
Injuria sine damno.
This Latin principle means there has been legal injury (injuria) but no actual damage has been
caused.
Example : In the famous case of Ashby v. White a listed voter was not allowed to cast his vote by
the polling officer. The voters candidate of choice ultimately won the election. So no actual
damage was caused but there was a violation of the persons legal right to vote. This is injuria or
legal injury even though no actual damage has been caused. This is a tort and the aggrieved party
has a right of action in tort law.
Damnum sine injuria
This means that there has been damage but no legal injury has been committed so no action lies
in tort law.
Example : In the Gloucester Grammar School case there was an established school in the
locality. A new school was set up which charged lower fees on account of which
people started patronising the new school. The old school filed a case against the latter saying
Page 5 of 48

that they had caused them financial loss and claimed compensation. The court held that no legal
right had been violated and as such no compensation can be granted. Thus if damage is caused
which does not lead to violation of a legal right then no action lies under tort law.
Other terms to remember:
Plaintiff and Defendant:
In tort law the two parties in a case are known as plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff is the
aggrieved party who files the suit claiming some legal injury being done to him. Defendant is the
person who is alleged to have committed the tort.
Tortfeasor:
The person who commits a tort, i.e. a civil wrong is said to be a tort-feasor. When two or more
persons jointly commit a civil wrong they are called joint tort-feasors.
a) Nature and Definition of Tort.
A tort is a civil wrong which entitles a person who is injured by itsy commission to claim
damages for his loss, whether purely by way of reparation or as a way of bringing home to the
defendant the anti-social nature of his act. An injunction is also a proper remedy in some
circumstances.
Whereas contractual duties are imposed by the parties to the contract themselves, the duty to
refrain from committing torts is imposed by the general law of the land, independently of the
wishes of the plaintiff or of the defendant.
Types of torts
a) Trespasses: A trespass is a direct and forcible injury. The plaintiff need not prove damages; he
must only show that a trespass has been committed.
b) Actions on the case: Those were actions for damage caused otherwise than directly and
forcibly.
They were recognized in circumstances in which there had been no remedy but the plaintiff
could show that, upon the facts of the case, he had suffered damage as the result of some act or
omission of the defendant. Here, the plaintiff must show that he suffered some acual ('special')
damage.
2 questions in Tort Law:
1) is a person deserving of damages?
2) is there a person deserving of paying those damages?
-Tort Law says there is a cost to making unsafe products (i.e. companies often find that it is
cheaper to pay damages than to alter a product)
What are the conditions of finding someone (person, government, manufacturer) at fault?
Page 6 of 48

-what does it mean to find someone at fault?

1. Causation
-is there a causal connection b/w the actors actions and the damaged persons injuries (Tort visas
are the individual who committed the tortuous act)
show that actions of D caused damages to P
-what test will be used to demonstrate how injuries were caused?
-onus is on P to prove that D caused injury/damage
BUT the D (i.e. a producer) is usually in the best position to provide information as to how
their product may cause damages, BUT the P has to prove this
2. Duty of Care
-does the D owe a duty of care to the P?
-liable for injury if there is a duty of care
-(i.e. owner of product passes it on to someone elseis there a duty of care?)
-can doctors owe duty of care over the generations? (i.e. genetic defect in grandchild of doctors
patient due to drug administered by doctor)
3. Standard of Care
-even if injury is caused, and even if there was a duty of careit can still be shown that if D
operates at a certain standard of care, they may not be liable
-(i.e. patient goes to dentist and loses feeling in jawdentist causes injury, dentist owes duty of
care, BUT if dentist shows that reasonable procedures were followed, they may not be liable)
4. Remoteness of Damage
-not liable for all injuries you cause
-only liable for those injuries that are reasonably foreseeable
-(i.e. something dropped in hull of ship and eventually caused fire, but court found that damage
was not reasonably foreseeabledamage caused by dropping item was, but not fire)
5. Defences
-D can argue that P shares in the damages (b/c shared in the cause of damage)
-(i.e. party outside and someone dives off of roof into pool and is paralysedwho is liable, the
host or the individual who committed the act
-was the fault of the P enough to absolve the D of all liability?
6. Losses
-what types of losses can one claim for (physical injury, emotional distress, economic losses,
etc.)
-can one claim for economic losses (i.e. power failure causes disruption to businesscan
business sue for loss of profits?)
b) Development of Tort action in England and India-
Page 7 of 48

The word Tort comes from the Latin expression Tortum, which means to twist. It includes such
conducts, which are not straight or lawful, but are twisted or unlawful. In the broader sense, tort
can be said to be equivalent to the English term wrong.
So far no exact definition of tort has been incorporated and the process of development of this
branch of law is still continuing. It is easier to describe tort than to define it. We may define tort
as a civil wrong, as opposed to a criminal wrong, which is redressible by an action for damages
and which is other than a mere breach of contract or breach of trust
Damages awarded in tort are 'unliquidated' in nature, which means that such amount is not
determined previously, but the determination of the same is left to the discretion of the court.
In the words of Sir Frederick Pollock: Every tort is an act or omission, which is related in one
of the following ways to harm, suffered by a determinate person. It may be an act, which,
without lawful justification or excuse, is intended by the agent to cause harm, and actually causes
the harm complained of. It may be an act in itself contrary to law, or even an omission of any
legal duty, which causes harm though not intended by the person so acting or omitting.
Moreover, it may be an act involving the violation of absolute right and treated as wrongful
without
regard
to
the
actors
intention
or
knowledge.
It may also be an act or omission causing harm which the person so acting or omitting to act did
not intend to cause, but might and should with due diligence have foreseen and prevented.
Further, it may, in some cases, consist merely in not avoiding or preventing harm, which the
party was bound absolutely or within limits, to avoid or prevent.
a) Development of law of Torts in India
The law of torts in India is mainly the English law of torts which is based on the principles of the
common law. This was made suitable to the Indian conditions in accordance with the principles
of justice, equity and good conscience. However, the application of tort laws in India is not a
very regular event and one can even go to the extent of commenting that tort as a law in India is
far from being looked upon as a major branch of law and litigation. In the Indian legal system,
the concept of punishment occupies a more prominent place than compensation for wrongs.It
has been argued that the development of law of tort in Indian need not be on the same lines as in
England.
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, Justice Bhagwati said, we have to evolve new principles
and lay down new norms which will adequately deal with new problems which arise in a
highly industrialized economy. We cannot allow our judicial thinking to be constructed by
reference to the law as it prevails in England or for the matter of that in any foreign
country. We are certainly prepared to receive light from whatever source it comes but we
have to build our own jurisprudence. AIR 1987 SC 1086 WP 12739/1985 (20.12.1986)
(Oleum Gas Leak Case)
In Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, Justice Sahai., observed, Truly
speaking the entire law of torts is founded and structured on morality. Therefore, it would
Page 8 of 48

be primitive to close strictly or close finally the ever expanding and growing horizon of
tortuous liability. Even for social development, orderly growth of the society and cultural
refineness, the liberal approach to tortious liability by court would be conducive
Tort Law In India Whether Unnecessary Truly speaking the entire law of torts is founded and
structured on morality. Therefore, it would be primitive to close strictly or close finally the ever
expanding and growing horizon of tortious liability. Even for social development, orderly growth
of the society and cultural the liberal approach to tortious liability by court would be
conducive.- Sahai. J.
The observation made by Honble Sahai.J dispels any illusions as to the necessity of the law of
torts. His observations also envisage the growth of tort litigation in India. To fully asses the role
played by tort law in a modern society, it would be instructive to turn to the history England
during the last three centuries. This is for two reasons firstly, tort litigation in England has grown
significantly, making it an interesting study and secondly, the law of torts in India has been
largely borrowed from the English law of torts.
The outstanding fact of Englands legal history relevant to the present context is the growth of
her own tort law from small beginnings to the size and status of a separate branch of law. This
was the work of her lawyers and judges who developed the action for damages as a remedy for
violations of rights and duties and fashioned it as an instrument for making people adhere to
standards of reasonable behaviour and to respect the rights and interests of one another.
As a result, the English people benefited by the cultivation of habits of thought and conduct
which helps social peace and co-operative effort, inculcated a live sense of individual rights
which they do not hesitate to ascertain in courts of law. The necessary corollary of this is the
formulation of a large body of rules defining in detail the rights of the individual in relation to
others and the conditions in which he can assert them in a court of law. So we have a body of law
whose rules have grown and are constantly growing in response to new concepts of rights and
duty and new needs and conditions.
If it is true to say that the English people attained during this period, a degree of social unity and
integration enabling them to achieve phenomenal success in various aspects of their life, activity
and welfare, it is difficult to resist the inference that among the many forces and influences that
made this possible, was the development of their system of law and justice so as to afford
security to the citizen in his life, person, property and rights and interests which he values. An
integral and important part of this system is tort law. [6]
Evidence of its importance is afforded by the large and growing volume of litigation and case
law in actions for torts of various kinds and in particular those of defamation, negligence and
nuisance. In deciding these actions English judges and juries have tried to make their decisions
sub-serve the purposes already stated. They have taken care to allow claims only when they are
just and make their awards of damages serve, on the one hand as a deterrent of wrong doing and
on the other, afford satisfaction to parties suffering from injury or loss. The views here stated
find support in the almost whole sale adoption of tort law of England along with her other laws
by progressive nations like those of the U.S.A, Canada and Australia.
Though we have done likewise in borrowing the English law of tort, we have to make a far
greater use of it than we do now for making it serve the purposes for which the people of other
countries aforesaid have used it. The use made of it in these countries in evidenced not only by
the case law in their courts but also by the continual interest evinced by their lawyers, judges and
Page 9 of 48

professors in the development of this branch of law by means of their contributions to the
growing volume of literature on it.
It is undeniable that we cannot afford to neglect any agency which can help to regulate individual
conduct in conformity with the needs of social peace and contentment which are the basic factors
on which our plans of national advancement can rest. It is hardly necessary to add that while
adopting English rules and theories, we have to make alterations and adaptations of them which
are demanded by conditions in India as observed by various Indian Judges[7] and also take note
of the great changes in this branch of law that are taking place elsewhere.
Therefore it is unnecessary to state that, there is absolutely no scope of doing away with this
branch of law. Some may argue that the law of torts merely plays merely a role of a residuary
law. However bearing in mind the facts above mentioned it is clear that there is no truth in this
argument.
Tort Whether Simply Overlooked
The next logical progression would be to determine whether tort law has been simply
overlooked. The development of the absolute liability rule in the M.C. Mehta case and the
Supreme Courts direction on Multi national corporation Liability, recognition of Governmental
tort by employees of government, principles on legality of State, evolution of tort of sexual
harassment, grant of interim compensation to a rape victim, and award of damages for violation
of human rights under writ jurisdiction, including a recent Rs.20 crore exemplary damages in the
Upahaar Theatre fire tragedy case by the Delhi High Court are significant changes in the tort law
of India, which affords a preliminary answer that tort law has not been overlooked.
There have been a number of enactments such as the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991,
Environment Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Human Rights Protection
Act, 1998, Pre-Natal Diagnostics Techniques Regulations and Prevention of Misuse Act, 1994,
embodying the new principles of tortious liability in India. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and
judicial interpretation continue to contribute to development of accident jurisprudence. The
unfortunate Bhopal Gas Leak disaster has triggered a new path of tort jurisprudence, leading to
environment tort, toxic torts, governmental torts, MNCs liability, congenital torts, stricter
absolute liability, etc. Still the Indian Law Reports furnish in this respect a striking contrast to the
number of tort cases before the Courts.
While most branches of law, eg, crimes, contracts, property, trusts, etc, have been codified, it is
interesting to observe that there is yet no code for torts in India. Most of the development in tort
law is the contribution of the Indian Judges and lawyers. Though recommendations for an
enactment on tort law were made as early as in 1886 by Sir F Pollock, who prepared a bill known
as the Indian Civil Wrongs Bill at the instance of the Government of India, it was never taken
up for legislation.
Undoubtedly a code is useful, but it is well to recognise that this branch of law is still in the
process of growth and while it would be difficult to prepare a code, it would not also help a
proper development of the law to do so. Lack of a code for the law of torts acts as a deterring
factor for it to branch out as a favoured form of litigation. The growth of tort law in India does
not even compare to other progressive countries which have put it to much better use as
discussed previously.
Acknowledging the fact that a code on torts would be premature for the reasons aforementioned,
it would perhaps be wiser to start with enactments on particular topics on which the case-law in
India is unsatisfactory and has to be rectified. One of the first recommendations for legislation
Page 10 of 48

made by the Law Commission appointed by the Government of India is on the subject of liability
of the government for torts of its servants.
Recently the National Commission for Review of Working of Constitution (NCRWC) also
recommended a law to give liability of state for torts of its employees in the report of the
commission headed by MN Venkatachaliah CJ (2002).
One the other hand the reason why an Indian code on this branch of law is premature is that there
is very little tort litigation in our courts and there have not been sufficient opportunities for
applying principles evolved elsewhere or evolving principles appropriate to Indian conditions. At
present it is a singular circumstance that very few cases of torts go before the Indian courts.
However this proves to be a Catch 22 situation as until there is a code for the law of torts not
many people will prefer to go to the courts for cases involving torts, as they would not be sure of
its outcome.
Conclusion
The law of torts in India is definitely not unnecessary but merely requires enactments to make it
more ascertainable. Failure of aggrieved persons to assert their legal rights is perhaps to be
ascribed not merely to insufficient appreciation of such rights but to other causes as well, e.g.,
difficulties in proving claims and obtaining trustworthy testimony, high court fees, delay of
courts. The elimination of difficulties which obstruct aggrieved parties in seeking or obtaining
remedies which the law provides for them is a matter which is worthy of consideration. If these
lacunae are removed, India could also witness a growth in tort litigation.
Tort distinguished from Contract
Contract law is that body of rules that govern contractual agreements between persons or
merchants. A contract is basically an agreement between parties outlining their duties and
responsibilities to one another. Contracts can be formed for nearly any type of interaction. Thus,
contract laws may address various transactions for the sale of goods and services. Contract laws
outline what a person can or cannot include in a contract, and what the remedies are if a party
breaches their contractual duties.
In contrast, tort laws govern situations where one person has harmed or injured another person.
Tort laws cover violations where the party intentionally harmed the other person, such as in a
battery claim. Tort laws also address incidents where the party may be held liable even if they
did not act intentionally, such as in negligence claims or strict liability claims. Tort laws usually
result in the liable party paying the victim monetary damages to compensate for their losses.
Similarities between Tort Laws and Contract Laws
Contract laws and tort laws share many similarities. At the most basic level, both contract and
tort laws usually deal with a duty that has been breached.
With contract violations, the breach has to do with the duties that have been named in the
contract. For example, a contract may state that one party has the duty to pay the other for repair
services, and the other party has a duty to perform the services. If either party fails to perform
their duties, contract laws will prescribe a suitable remedy for the breach.
Page 11 of 48

Most tort violations also involve some sort of breach of duty. For instance, personal injuries
usually occur because the liable party has breached their duty not to harm another person. Other
types ofrelationships may create a duty of care, such as when shopkeepers have a duty to
maintain their premises so that they are safe for patrons.
Damages awards can be obtained in both contract and tort violations. These are monetary
payments made by the liable party in order to make up for any losses that result from their
breach.
Differences between Contract and Tort Laws
There are several fundamental differences between contract and tort laws. One of the
most importantdifferences is the issue of consent. In a contract, the parties must enter into the
agreement knowinglyand without being coerced. In order for the contract to be valid, each party
must consent to the outcome of the contract as stated in the document.
This means that one party cannot force the other to enter into the contract without their consent.
Therefore, damages in a contract claim usually have to do with a mistake or a misunderstanding
between the parties, since they are typically aware of what they dealing with in the contract.
On the other hand, the interaction in a tort is never based on consent. Torts generally involve an
intrusion by one party into the safety, health, profit, or privacy of the victim. In fact, if the victim
consents to the tortious conduct, it can serve as a defense that will prevent them from recovering
damages.
This difference with regards to consent is reflected in the way that courts award damages. For
contracts, the purpose of a damages award is to restore the parties to their position before the
breach occurred. In a torts claim, the damages are usually awarded to compensate the victim for
their loss. Punitive damages are sometimes awarded in a tort suit in order to punish the
defendant. Punitive damages are rarely issued in a contracts claim.
Can a Person file a Contract claim and a Tort claim in the same Lawsuit?
Generally speaking, contract claims and tort claims are so different that they must be filed
separately. For example, suppose that one party breached a contract, and the other party became
angry andassaulted the person who breached the contract. The breach of contract issue must be
heard in one lawsuit, and the assault claim must be dealt with separately.
On the other hand, there are situations where a tort claim and a contract claim can be so
intertwined that they may be heard in the same lawsuit. Usually the tort must affect the subject
matter of the contract in order for them to be filed concurrently or at the same time. An
example of such a concurrent filing is breach of contract and simultaneous fraud. This is where
the breach of contract is based on the fraudulent conduct of one of the parties.
Page 12 of 48

Do you need a Lawyer for issues with Contract Law and Tort Law?
Contract laws and tort laws share many similarities and differences. If you have an issue with
either area of law, or with both, you may wish to consult with a lawyer for more information.
Your attorney can tell you whether you can file both types of claims in the same suit.
Quasi-Contract and Crime.
In case of tort duty is owed to all members of the public (though only one may be affected)
whereas in a quasi-contract, a duty is implied as being owed to a specific person i.e., the rightful
recipient. In tort the duty is present at all the times, whereas in case of a quasi-contract is formed
because of a particular situation i.e., the wrongful recipient of the benefit etc. also in case of tort
the damages are unliquidated, but in case of a quasi-contract the damages may be liquidated
damages. Conditions which are necessary for a tort are:
1.
There must be an act or an omission on the part of the defendant or the alleged
wrongdoer. In order to be liable for a tort, a person must have done some act which he was not
supposed to do.
2.
The act or omission should result in a legal damage, which means that the act or omission
must result in the violation of a legal right of the plaintiff or the complainant. The legal damage
is called injuria which means legal injury'. One can be injured but he has to be legally injured.
Also there is no general rule in tort law that one must have intended to the wrongful act in order
to be held liable. In some torts, such as assault, deceit and conspiracy, the mental condition is
relevant, while in most of the other torts the mental condition of the wrongdoer is irrelevant. The
reason for this is that tort law requires not just that people not attempt to hurt others, but also that
people do their best not to allow their actions to accidently hurt others. So basically tort law
primarily wants to catch careless people in order to avoid future misfortunes.
c) Constituent of Tort- Wrongful Act, Damage and Remedy.
Note: Refer class notes.
d) Liabilities- Strict Liability and Absolute Liability.
Strict Liability
The rule was laid down in the famous Ryland vs. Fletcher (1868) case. In this case, the defendant
constructed a reservoir on his land to provide water to his mill. The defendant did not know that
there were some disused mineshafts just next to his reservoir. The water burst through the
reservoir into the disused mineshafts, and flooded coal mines in the adjoining land. The
defendant did not know of the shafts, and there was no negligence on his part though there was
negligence on the part of the contractors he had hired to build the reservoir. Yet the court held
him liable. The court said the principal governing such a situation is one of strict liability,
because if a person brings a potentially dangerous thing on his land and if such a thing escapes
and does damage, then such person should be held responsible, even if he were not negligent.
Page 13 of 48

Here the reservoir was said to be the potentially dangerous thing. The criterion for strict liability
is that, a dangerous thing must have been brought by the person on his land; such a thing must
have escaped the land. Also the thing must have been intended to be used for some non-natural
purpose.
The defenses for escaping strict liability are: if the plaintiff himself did something which resulted
in damage to him by the defendant's property, then that is a defense. If there is an act of god than
it is also defense. Also in case if there is an act of third party i.e. some stranger, than that is a
defense. Also in case a government keeps dangerous thing under a statute, then there is no
question of strict liability.
Absolute Liability
This is similar to strict liability, except for the fact that there is no defense to it. In effect, there
are no excuses for the harm caused. The rule of absolute liability evolved in the famous Indian
case M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (1987). In this case the court said that there are no defenses
as were there in the case of Ryland vs. Fletcher. The court came out with a logic that a person a
person who carries on a dangerous activity for profit is responsible for any harm that may flow
from such activity. The rule of absolute liability was followed in Bhopal Gas Leak case and is
also used in environmental pollution cases.
Vicarious Liability- scope and justification
Vicarious liability is one of the most important part of torts which is basically concerned with
holding the master responsible for the wrongful acts of the servant done in the course of
employment
i.
ii.
iii.
PRINCIPLES:
We need to remember that tort law has evolved from various judgements given by the
courts. The reason why master was held liable for the servants wrongful acts is because in
various cases it was found that the servant did not have enough resources to compensate the
plaintiff. In this case the very purpose of damages i.e restoration to the position before the
wrongful act, was defeated.
The courts then decided to apply two very important principles to fix liability in such
cases. The first isqui facit per alium facit per se meaning he who acts through another is
deemed to have acted himself. The servants act in the course of employment are generally( I use
generally because of the recent developments in vicarious liability-Ive explained later on) for
the masters benefit and hence it is only fair that he be held liable
The other principle is respondent superior, which means let the principal be liable for
reasons Ive just mentioned
ESSENTIALS OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY:
There are basically two conditions to be fulfilled for the master to be liable:
1.
The person so charged should be a servant
2.
The wrongful act should be in the course of employment
Who is a servant?
Page 14 of 48

For a person to be deemed servant in the eyes of law it is necessary that he fills some basic
conditions:
The hire and fire test- Basically his duration of employment is as per the will of the
employer
The direction and control test. This test is quite screwed up because there are numerous
interpretation of direction and control but in its essence it can be helpful
i.
ii.
Course of employment:
And now for the bitch, the slippery slope- what can be construed as course of employment? Well
to answer that Ill basically divide the wrongful acts of the servant into what is under course of
employment and what is not.
Wrongful acts under the course of employment:
1.
2.
Basically covers two classes of activities:

wrongful acts authorized by the master
authorized acts done in a wrongful manner (please make sure the difference in the two
sentences absolutely clear)
Acts of negligence by the servant: when the servant in performing some duty allotted to him
does so in a manner which results in a breach of that duty and causes damage to the plaintiff.
Case law 1: Limpus vs. London Omnibus and Co.
In this case the driver of the bus in order to overtake another bus was driving in a very rash and
negligent manner and hence ended up injuring the plaintiff. The catch in this case is such
atendency was known to the employer and he had prohibited the driver from doing so. Decide.
Case law 2: A driver employed by company A, dealing with petrol tankers, goes to the petrol
station for filing petrol in the tanker. While the petrol is getting filled the driver S, lights up a
cigarette and negligently throws the matchstick around causing a nearby petrol tank to burst and
causes irreparable loss to the petrol station. The petrol station sues company A. Will the suit
sustain? Decide
(Hint: this has something to do with my usage of the word generally earlier on)
Fraud by the servant: when unknown to the master the servant is executing his authorised act
by committing some fraud.
Case law 3: Lloyd vs. Grace Smith & co
The plaintiff approached the defendant company to help her self off some properties owned by
her as the real estate prices were quite high. The company directs her to an employee,
who claims to have got a buyer and makes her sign a sale deed which unknown to her
was actually a gift deed transferring the properties in favour of the employee. Decide whether
master is liable.
Theft and mistake by the servant:
Let me give you examples to explain these:
Page 15 of 48

Theft: for example when you give something for dry cleaning to a shop and one of the workers
theresteals it, then the shop owner can be made vicariously liable.
Mistake: for example the owner is a party organizer and tells the servant to arrange the coke.
Now the servant picks up a bottle from the grocery which has brown liquid and believing it to be
coke he hands it around in the party. Somebody in the party is allergic to alchoholic drinks and
develops a medical condition. The master here becomes vicariously liable for the mistake of the
servant
Delegation of duties by a servant:
If a servant has been authorised by the master to do a certain act and the servant in performing
that either solicits help of another or completely gives charge to somebody else, the master can
be held liable if any damage is caused by this delegation. The rationale over here is the work if
completed successfully would have ultimately benefitted the master.
Case law 4: Ricketts v. Thomas Tilling Ltd.
The driver who had been authorised to drive the bus, feels tired and asks the conductor to drive
the bus for some time. The conductor while driving the bus, does so quite negligently and hurts a
pedestrian X. X brings a suit against the bus company. Will he succeed? Decide.
Acts not in the course of employment
Only when the act so done is of the nature that it cannot be related to the duty that the master had
sent for the servant or an activity which had been expressly prohibited, only then will it count
as not being in the course of employment
Case law 5: State Bank of India v. Shyama Devi
In this case a person a person A had opened an account with bank z. He had a friend who
worked for this bank and so instead of going to the bank to deposit money he used to give the
money deposit to his friend B to deposit in the bank and A obtained no receipt for the same.
B took advantage of this and kept the money for himself. When such discrepancies were
noticed by A he decides to file a suit. Guide him as to against whom should he file the suit.
Effect of express prohibition
If a servant acts in defiance of express prohibition of a certain act by the master, then the master
cannot be held liable. A simple warning by the master to the servant or general guidelines cannot
be construed as being express prohibition. The master should have gone out of the ordinary way
to prohibit the servant from doing that wrongful act.
Case law 6: Twine v. Bean Expresses Ltd.
Kareena was the owner of a travel agency and had put up two notices on all her vehicles, one that
no unauthorised person is allowed to take a lift and the other that the driver Katrina was
expressly prohibited from doing so. Despite this Katrina gives left to Priyanka, who as a result of
Katrinas negligence dies in the accident so caused. Priyankas heirs decide to sue Kareena for
this. Will they succeed?
When the work is not for which servant was employed
Page 16 of 48

This can best be explained with some case laws:

Case law 7:
Salman is the servant of Amir. Salman before reporting to work at Amirs house goes to a tea
shop. There he sees his arch-rival Shahrukh and calls him a thieving scumbag and also accuses
him of misappropriate behaviour. Shahrukh decides to file a suit against Salman only. Advise
him whether he should file a case against Amir as well.
Case law 8: Beard v. London general omnibus & co.
A was the driver of a bus owned by Z. A went for lunch to some restaurant and during this time
the conductor S decides to reverse the bus so that they could be ready to go when A comes back.
While doing so he negligently hits a passer-by D. Help D to decide who he should sue.(Please
note very carefully the difference between the facts of this case and case law 4)
Servants lend to others
When a servant is lent out to another person then the master who still controls the activities of
the servant and not just merely directs his actions will be the one who is liable. Mostly it is the
actual master who is held liable and not the person to whom the servant has been lent
temporarily. This rule applies unless the permanent master can prove that the servant was
completely in the control of the temporary master and he could not have controlled the servants
action.
Case law 9: Mersey Docks & Harbour board v. Coggins & Griffith
Company G had hired a crane from company I along with the crane driver. While transferring
goods the crane driver lost control and the goods fell on a passer-by Q who was seriously
injured. Who should Q sue?
Giving lift to strangers:
Position in England
In England if the driver of a car is prohibited by the owner to strictly not give lifts to strangers
and the driver disobeying the order of the master does so then any suit against the master will
fail. Compensation can be claimed only against the servant and the master in such a case cannot
be made vicariously liable.
Position in India
However such a rule is not applicable in India where a driver disobeying verbal orders of the
master gives lift to a stranger the master can still be held liable.
Solutions to case laws:
case law 1: Clearly the servant has acted negligently and the master then becomes vicariously
liable. if you get confused by the prohibition part just remember the prohibition is not express
enough
case law 2: Though the smoking had nothing to do with the task of the servant it is just a
wrongful way of doing an authorized activity. the clue about general was to make you realise that
thewrongful act neednt if done correctly benefit the master.
Page 17 of 48

case law 3: the master in this case is clearly liable as the wrongful act was in the course of
employment and a wrongful way of doing an authorised activity
case law 4: By a clear application of the principle of wrongful delegation, it is quite conclusive
that the master is liable. Hence X will succeed
case law 5: Bs act was not in the course of employment as he was receiving money from A only
in a personal capacity and not as a clerk with the bank. hence, A can file a suit against B only and
not the bank.
case law 6: the suit will fail. Kareena had through her two notices expressly prohibited Katrina
from giving a lift. If Katrina still does so and causes an accident then Kareena cannot be made
vicariously liable for it.
case law 7: Salmans act of defaming Sharukh was in no way related to his employment. Hence
he should be advised not to file a suit against Amir.
Case law 8: it was not the conductors job to reverse the bus nor had he been asked by the driver
to do so( answer would have been different if this was the case). Hence the wrongful act is
outside the purview of employment. Thus, only S can be made liable
Case law 9: though company G was using the crane they had no control over how the crane
driver was going to use the crane. This was still with the company I. Hence, company I will be
made liable
e) Conditions of Liability including damnum sine injuria, injuria sine damno; Remoteness of
Damages. Maxims: Ubi jus ibi remedium, Res ipsa loquitor, Volenti non fit injuria etc.
f) Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity.
Page 18 of 48

MODULE-II: Justification in Tort/ General Defenses

a) Volenti non-fit injuria.
b) Necessity,
c) Plaintiffs default./ Plaintiff the wrong doer
d) Act of God.
e) Inevitable accidents.
f) Private defenses.
g) Judicial and Quasi- Judicial Acts.
h) Parental and Quasi-parental authority.
Asad and Aymen are the best of chumss who go to the R. Singh International Stadium at
NALSAR to witness a cricket match between NALSAR and XYZ, Bangalore. During the match
a stray ball hits Asad in the eye. Asad cannot claim damages from the stadium authorities or the
batsman who hit the ball because when he went to watch the match at the stadium he voluntarily
accepted the risk that he was undertaking. Such is a valid defence in tort law. General defences
are a set of defences or excuses that you can undertake to escape liability in tort only if your
actions have qualified a specific set of conditions that go attached with these defences. Most of
these defences can be claimed to escape liability in toto, or in some cases to an extent. Lets
delve into these defences.
Vis Major or Act of God.
When something occurs over which you have no control and it is effected of accentuated by the
forces of nature then you are not liable in tort law for such inadvertent damage that may arise out
of such. However if you were well aware of the risks and could have possibly taken steps to stop
the wrongful act or damaging act or have in anyway mitigated it then you cannot duck
responsibility under this defence. Constituents of this defence:
Due to forces of nature or unnatural circumstances.
You had no control over it and it happened suddenly.
You had no knowledge or could not do anything to mitigate the damage.
Page 19 of 48

Plaintiff the Wrongdoer.

Lets take an illustration to understand this concept. Ketan and Shailesh are next door
neighbours. However they cannot stand each other and have frequent quarrels which often turn
nasty. In the dead of night Ketan steals into Shaileshs property claiming he wanted to take a
walk in the latters gardens. Shailesh had a pet dog called YenYalYas who jumped at Ketan.
Ketan files a suit claiming damges from Shailesh. Shailesh can take the plea of plaintiff the
wrongdoer as Ketan himself had first trespassed onto his property and thus could not claim a
suit having committed a wrong himself in the first place.
Should the plea of plaintiff the wrongdoer succeed, the plaintiffs case falls.
Volenti non fit injuria.
This principle states that if one voluntarily takes the risk of something then he may not claim a
suit of action of such risk leads to injury. However this risk must have been taken under free
consent and not under coercion and with the full knowledge of the risk.
A corollary of this principle is Scienti non fit injuria which means that only knowledge of the
risk is not enough to claim defence there must be acceptance to undergo the resultants of the risk
undertaken. There had to be consent and mere knowledge is not sufficient.
Private Defence
Nothing is wrong if done with regard to protecting ones own self, another self, ones property or
anothers property against a threat to such. Suppose Someone points a loaded gun at me and
threatens me I do have the right to bodily harm that person in order to save myself or someone
else. However there are limitations to such rule with regard to the force being used which must
be proportional to the risk presented.
Points to remember about private defence:
Risk must be immediate and sudden.
Force used must be proportionate to the risk at hand.
Inevitable Accident.
This is a defence that can be claimed under a situation where inspite of taking reasonable care
and protection the harm could not be averted. This does not mean absolutely inevitable but
unavoidable even after taking necessary precautions with respect to the harm in question.
Sandipan and Shayak went to the Sunderbans to shoot pheasants. Sandipans bullet skidded off
the bark of a tree and hit Shayak while he was talking on the phone. Shayak was injured and sued
his friend for compensation. The defence of inevitable accident could herein be rightfully
claimed by Sandipan. (Similar facts in Stanley v. Powell).
Page 20 of 48

Mistake
This is not a very often claimed defence as it is very hard to fit in a case into the subtle limits of
this defence of mistake. This refers to a particular case wherein a person was under mistaken
knowledge usually and even after taking reasonable precautions could not have been reasonably
expected to not commit the so called mistake.
Rupali runs an auction shop on the beaches of Goa. Shraddha is a Nepalese entrepreneur who
asks her friend Rupali to auction off some ill gotten goods that the former has smuggled in from
Nepal. Rupali ran all the usual checks on the goods and was reasonably confident that the goods
were genuine. She auctioned off the goods and then the anomaly was detected and the new
owners sued Rupali. Herein Rupali can claim the defence of mistake.
Necessity
Under dire conditions if one does something which results in a tort then once can usually claim
the defence of necessity. Such condition should however be able to come under the bracket of
general good or greater good (there little Harry Potter for you!!!) and to prevent a bigger
harm.
Anindita and Sanya are nighbours. Sanyas house was on fire so she trespassed onto Aninditas
property to draw water from the latters well to douse the fire (prevent a greater harm). Thus she
is covered under the defence of necessity.
Page 21 of 48

MODULE-III: Specific Torts

a) Defamation- Libel, Slander including Defenses in an action for Defamation.
Defamation is an exciting area of law which is frequently in the media because of actions by
celebrities and politicians. It is also an area which is inherently concerned with freedom of
expression, encapsulated in Article 10 of the 1998 Human Rights Act. The idea behind
defamation is the protection of reputation of a person or business from injury due to unjustified
insults. Clearly, if people were permitted to say whatever they want about each other, regardless
of the consequences, society would be a much less friendly place to live or effective place to run
a business.
There are two types of defamation:
Libel - something which is in a permanent form e.g. in writing, images, film or recording. It
also includes anything said on stage or in a broadcast.
Slander - spoken words usually said in a conversation.
An important term which is used repeatedly in the case law is 'publication'. In order to be
actionable, a defamatory statement must be 'published' to a third party. In defamation, 'publish'
does not have its ordinary definition meaning the printing of words in a book or leaflet.
Publishing, here, means communicating the defamatory statement to a third party, whether that is
in a conversation or the people at home who are watching a television show in which a
defamatory comment is made.
1. The Statement must be Defamatory
The first requirement for a defamation action is that the statement is defamatory.
Page 22 of 48

Basic Definition
A defamatory comment is one that injures a person's reputation. The basic test is fromPartimer v
Coupland (1840) 6 M&W 105,
"[Was the statement] calculated to injure the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred,
contempt or ridicule."
Thus was expanded on in Sim v Stretch (1936) 52 TLR 669,
"The conventional phrase exposing the plaintiff to hatred, ridicule, contempt' is probably too
narrow ... after collating the opinions of many authorities I propose in the present case the
test: would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of
society generally ?" (emphasis added)
It does not matter if the statement is not believed in fact by the people they are published to, but
it does matter if no reasonable person would believe them , in which case they are not
actionable: Loukas v Young [1968] 2 NSWR 549 (concerned allegations of witchcraft). The
statement must be assessed in its context and regard must be had to the characteristics of the
Claimant; a statement which is defamatory of practising lawyer may not be of a law student.
In Monson v Tussuads, mentioned above, a wax statue of the Claimant had been placed in the
same room as some murders next to the Chamber of Horrors. The Claimant had been tried for
murder but a verdict of 'not proven' was entered and he was successful in his claim.
A defamation must go beyond mere insults and strike at the claimant's reputation. Insults and
jokes may hurt people and even be the cause of a civil action in employment law i.e. between
employees), but discourtesy and insults are not on the same level as defamation. Defamation is
one of the only areas of civil law to retain a jury, and it would be for the jury to decide whether
the words were defamatory.
2. The Statement Must Refer to the Claimant
How Can we Identify the Claimant

The Claimant doesn't have to be identified by name but as long as a reasonable inference can be
made this criteria is satisfied (i.e. in Byrne v Deane the proem said 'byrnn'; this was obvious
enough to identify the Claimant as the target of the comment). Also, as we have just seen in
Cassidy, words published about one person can sometimes defame another.
Page 23 of 48

However, it is important to remember that the question is not who the publisher intended to hit,
but who they actually hit. Thus in Hulton v Jones [1910] AC 20, Artemus Jones was a barrister
who brought an action against the defendants in respect of a newspaper article which allegedly
referred to him. The article referred to a man called Artemus Jones who worked as a warden and
alleged that he had behaved immorally during a motor festival. The Claimant had contributed
pieces to the newspaper before. The Defendants argued that they had never intended the 'real'
Artemus Jones but instead had created a fictional character and given it a fancy name. The
Defendants lost at trial, in the Court of Appeal and in the House of Lords. This case has been
called 'the most famous case in the law of libel' and has been heavily criticised. Arguably it is
quite unfair to the newspaper. At the same time, however, it is not open to anyone with the same
name to sue. Rather the jury must reasonably believe that the person in the statement is the
Claimant. It will be hard to convince them when the Claimant has no connection at all with any
of the facts
In cases where there the article accidentally refers to an unintended person, the publisher can
make an offer of amends under s2 Defamation Act 1996. This is situations where the Defendant
neither knew nor had reason to suspect that the statement referred to the claimant or was likely to
be understood as referring to the claimant. The offer of amends requires the Defendant to publish
an apology and offer to pay compensation.
Group Defamation
Where a statement is about a group of people it is difficult to prove that the statement refers to an
individual member e.g. all lawyers are thieves. However, there is no special rule preventing
liability in cases of group defamation.
In Knupffer v London Express Newspapers [1944] AC 116, some articles published during the
second world war referred to a political group of Russian exiles as people who wanted to work
with Hitler to make Russia facist. The Claimant was the head of the group in the UK and claimed
that the words could reasonably be understood as imputing him. The global membership was
2000 but the UK membership was only 24. The House of Lords said that there could be no
general rule preventing a lawsuit as long as the statement can be understood as referring to
individual members in the party, which they did not do in the present case.
3. The Statement must be Published

The words must be published to a third person, in other words to a person other than the
Claimant. A statement can be published in many ways including by omission, such as where you
have a duty to clear graffiti from the walls: Byrne v Deane , above. The one exception is that
communication to the Defendant's spouse is not publication but communication to the Claimant's
spouse may be.
Page 24 of 48

Defences
Some general defences available in tort apply also to defamation, such as consent (seeMonson v
Tussauds ). There are some defences which are specific to defamation, these are justification, fair
comment, privilege, offer of amends and innocent dissemination.
Justification
The Defendant can justify the defamatory comment by proving its truth. According toSutherland
v Stopes [1925] AC 47, the statement must be "true in substance and fact", so as long as the
statement is substantially true (but not completely true) the defence will succeed.
Fair Comment on a Matter in the Public Interest
Fair comment on a matter in the public interest is a full defence like justification. This is a
particularly useful defence to the media. However, this defence only applies to expressions of
opinion ('I think ...') and not expressions of fact ('The truth is ...'). The difference between these
can sometimes be hard to determine.
Privilege
In certain situations the right to free speech becomes more important than the right not to be
defamed. There are two types of privilege: absolute privilege when complete freedom of
information is needed and qualified privilege when the need for freedom is slightly lower.
Absolute Privilege
The main examples of absolute privilege are:
Statements in Parliament
Documents ordered to be published by Parliament
Statements made in the course of judicial proceedings e.g. witness' evidence
Fair and accurate reports of judicial proceedings
Communications by a minister of other officer of the state to another in the course of his duty.
Page 25 of 48

Qualified Privilege
Qualified privilege applies to a broader range of situations though it offers less protection. At
common law there is qualified privilege where,
Innocent Dissemination
Every person responsible for the publication of a defamatory statement is at risk of liability. An
action can be brought not only against the author of the article but also editor and owner of the
newspaper and even the printer and distributor. Section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 provides a
defence to those who:
Are not the author, editor or publisher
Took reasonable care in relation to its publication
Did not know, and had no reason to believe, that what they did caused or contributed to the
publication of defamatory materials.
This defence does not apply where the individual knows the material is defamatory but
reasonably believes that it is true.
Remedies
If an individual discovers that some defamatory comment will be published in the future they can
apply to the court for an injunction to stop the comment being published.
If the comment has already been published the claimant can seek a permanent injunction to
prevent any re-publications as well as damages.
In some cases exemplary damages have been awarded.
b) Negligence including Contributory Negligence and other defenses.
It is one of the most important in case of torts. This is because it is frequently committed and also
there is some type of negligence in most of the tort cases according to me. Tort is negligently
committed, i.e. negligently causing nuisance, negligently trespassing on someone's land, etc. in
order to establish the tort of negligence, it must be proved that:
1.
The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff
Page 26 of 48

2.
The defendant breached that duty, either totally or partially.
3.
The plaintiff suffered damage as a result of this breach of duty.

Duty of care: for showing an act of negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant owed
the plaintiff a legal duty of care. A legal duty is different from moral, social or religious duty. In
case of Donoghue vs. Stevenson, the plaintiff filled an action for negligence against the
manufacturer claiming that she had been seriously injured by the contents of the drink. The
defendant claimed in his defense that he had no duty as she did not buy the bottle. But the court
held that the manufacture owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and to all its consumers. The court
also held that the manufacturer had breached the duty and caused damage, and was therefore
negligent. I would like to also state that the duty is only there where the injury is foreseeable.
Breach of duty: After having established that the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care it
must then be proven that the duty was breached. For seeing whether due care was taken, one
must what was the standard of care required in that situation. If the care taken is less than
standard care than there is a breach of duty.
Damage as a result of Breach of Duty: in order to succeed in a legal action based on negligence,
it is necessary to show that the plaintiff suffered some damage. The plaintiff has to show the
incident happened and it caused injury to him. Also the defendant was in control of or
responsible for whatever caused the incident.
c) Nuisance.
Nuisance
In tort law, causing nuisance' means unreasonably interfering' with a person's right over, and
in connection, with his property or his land. Nuisance may be caused in various ways, such as
the causing of unnecessary noise, heat, smoke, smell and other such disturbing activities. For
example, your neighbor unnecessary is in the habit of setting on fire the morning piles of the
dead leaves. He burns these in his garden, but the smoke from this fire blows into your house,
and this is a type of general disturbance for you. Such behavior would constitute nuisance and
since you are denied the right to live in your property and enjoy their safely, so you could
complain about this nuisance, even a tenant could complain in a fixed time frame. There are two
types of nuisances, public nuisance and private nuisance.
1.
Public Nuisance: This type of nuisance occurs when the right of the general public is
interfered with. For instance, if a person deliberately blocks a road with his vehicle, then he
interferes with the right of the public in general, and that would be a public nuisance. This is
because the road is a public property, and by blocking it, the person interferes with the public
exercise or enjoyment of that property.
Public nuisance is a sort of crime and it is not merely a civil wrong committed against the rights
of a person, and commission of a public nuisance results in punishment by the state, which may
impose a fine or even put behind bars i.e. punishment. The damages cannot be sought through a
civil suit.
Page 27 of 48

2.
Private Nuisance: This is the kind of nuisance that is ground for a tort action for nuisance
by a private party. The damages could be sought through a civil suit. There are certain
requirements which need to be met for this, these include unreasonable interference by the
defendant, also the interference must be with the use or enjoyment of the plaintiff's property, the
plaintiff should have suffered some damage as a result.
d) Assault, Battery and mayhem.

Battery: It basically deals with actual use of unlawful force against a person. In order or a person
to prove a tort of battery, one needs to show the following things: one needs to show that there
was a use of force. The force need not have to be great. For example throwing water or spitting
on a person is a battery. Also it must be proven that the use of force was without any legal
justification and the use of force was intentional. By this I mean that an accident will not
constitute battery as long as there was no negligence involved.
Assault: the tort of assault occurs when the defendant does something that causes a reasonable
fear of battery in the mind of the plaintiff. By this I mean that assault occurs when something
scares the plaintiff that he is going to be subjected to use of force. Also the defendant should
have the ability to harm the plaintiff. . for example if a person in a hospital having fractures in his
body and is plastered and he says you I will bash you', it is not an assault. Also assault comes
before battery takes place.
e) False imprisonment and malicious prosecution.
A crime as well as an intentional tort. A a person commits false imprisonment when he commits
an act of restraint on another person which confines that person in a bounded area. An act of
restraint can be a physical barrier (such as a locked door), the use of physical force to restrain, a
failure to release, or an invalid use of legal authority. Threats of immediate physical force are
also sufficient to be acts of restraint. An area is only bounded if freedom of movement is limited
in all directions. If there is a reasonable means of escape from the area, the area is not bounded.
An example of an invalid use of legal authority is the detainment or arrest of a person without
a warrant, with an illegal warrant, or with a warrant illegally executed. So long as the person is
deprived of his personal liberty, the amount of time actually detained is inconsequential. See,
e.g. Schenck v. Pro Choice Network, 519 U.S. 357 (1997)
DEFINITION FROM NOLOS PLAIN-ENGLISH LAW DICTIONARY
A crime in which the perpetrator intentionally restrains another person without having the legal
right to do so. This can literally mean physical restraint, such as locking someone in a car or
tying the person to a chair. However, it's not necessary that physical force be used; threats or a
show of apparent authority are sufficient. False imprisonment is a misdemeanor and a tort (a civil
Page 28 of 48

violation). If the perpetrator confines the victim for a substantial period of time (or moves the
victim a significant distance) in order to commit a felony, the false imprisonment may become a
kidnapping. People who are arrested and get the charges dropped, or are later acquitted, often
think that they can sue the arresting officer for false imprisonment (also known as false arrest).
These lawsuits rarely succeed: As long as the officer had probable cause to arrest the person, the
officer will not be liable for a false arrest, even if it turns out later that the information the
officer relied upon was incorrect.
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
Malicious prosecution is the malicious institution of unsuccessful criminal or bankruptcy or
liquidation proceedings against another without reasonable or probable cause. This tort balances
competing principles, namely freedom that every person should have in bringing criminals
tojustice and the need for restraining false accusations against innocent persons. Malicious
prosecution is an abuse of the process of the court bywrongfully setting the law in motion on a
criminal charge. The foundation lies in the triangular abuse of the court process of the court by
wrongfully setting the law in motion and it is designed to encourage the perversion of the
machinery of justice for a proper cause the tort of malicious position provides redress for those
who are prosecuted without cause and with malice. In order to succeed the plaintiff must prove
that there was a prosecution without reasonable and just cause, initiated by malice and the case
was resolved in the plaintiffs favor. It is necessary to prove that damage was suffered as a result
of the prosecution.
In
an
action
of
malicious
prosecution
the
plaintiff
must
prove:
1) That he was prosecuted by the defendant.
2) That the proceeding complained was terminated in favour of the present plaintiff
3) That the prosecution was instituted against without any just or reasonable cause.
4) That the prosecution was instituted with a malicious intention, that is, not with the mere
intention of getting the law into effect, but with an intention, which was wrongful in fact.
5) That he suffered damage to his reputation or to the safety of person, or to security of his
property.
When does Prosecution commence
The Prosecution is not deemed to have commenced before a person is summoned to answer a
complaint. In Khagendra Nath v. Jacob Chandra there was mere lodging of ejahar alleging that
the plaintiff wrongfully took away the bullock cart belonging to the defendant and requested that
something shoud be done. The plaintiff was neither arrested nor prosecuted. It was held
thatmerely bringing the matter before the executive athourity did not amount to prosecution and
therefore the action for malicious prosecution could not be maintained. There is no
commencement of the prosecution when a magistrate issues only a notice and not summons to
the accused on receiving a complaint of defamation and subsequently dismissed it after hearing
both the parties.
Elements of malicious prosecution
1. Institution or continuation of Legal proceedings
Page 29 of 48

There must have been a prosecution initiated by the defendant. The word prosecution means a
proceeding in a court of law charging a person with a crime. To prosecute is to set the law in
motion and the law is set in motion only by an appeal to some person clothed. The person to be
sued is the person who was actively instrumental in putting the law in force. There was a
conflict on the question whether there is prosecution of a person before process is issued calling
upon him to defend himself. One view was that a prosecution began only when process was
issued and there could be no action when a magistrate dismissed a complaint under section 203
of the code of criminal procedure. The other view was that a prosecution commenced as soon as
a charge was made before the court and before process was issued to the accused.
The proper test was indicated by the privy council in the Mohammad Amin v. Jogendra Kumar
Bannerjee .The defendant had filed a complaint before the magistrate charging the plaintiff with
cheating. The magistrate thereupon examined the complainant an oath and made an inquiry
under s 202 of the code of criminal procedure. Notice of the inquiry had been issued to the
plaintiff who attended it with his counsel and incurred costs doing so. The magistrate finally
dismissed the complaint under section 203 of the code. In these circumstances the Privy Council
held that there was a prosecution .The test is not whether the criminal proceedings have reached
a stage at which they may be described as a prosecution, the test is whether such proceedings
have reached a stage at which damage to the plaintiff results. A mere presentation of complaint to
a magistrate who dismissed it on the ground that is disclosed no offence may not be sufficient
ground for presuming that damage was a necessary consequence. It will be for the plaintiff to
prove that damage actually resulted.
In the Gaya Prasad v Bhagat Singh the privy council pointed out that the conduct of the
complainant before and after the complaint has to be seen to decide whether he was the real
prosecutor or not. If the complainant knowing that the charge is false tries to mislead the police
by procuring false evidence for the conviction of the accused, he would be considered to be the
prosecutor.
2. Termination of the prosecution in the plaintiffs favour
The plaintiff must prove that the prosecution ended in his favour. He has no right to sue before it
is terminated and while it is pending. The termination may be by an acquittal on the merits and a
finding of his innocence or by a dismissal of the complaint for technical defects or for nonprosecution. If however his is convicted he has no right to sue and will not be allowed to show
that he was innocent and wrongly convicted. His only remedy in that case is to appeal against the
conviction. If the appeal results in his favour then he can sue for malicious prosecution. It is
unnecessary for the plaintiff to prove his innocence as a separate issue.
3. Absence of reasonable and probable cause
Reasonable and probable cause is an honest belief in the guilt of the accused based on a full
conviction founded upon reasonable grounds, of the existence of a circumstances, which
assuming them to be true, would reasonably lead any ordinary prudent man and cautious man
placed in the position of the accuser to the conclusion that the person charged was probably
guilty of the crime imputed. As laid down in Hicks v. Faulkner there must be
i. an honest belief of the accuser in the guilt of the accused
Page 30 of 48

ii. such belief must be based on an honest conviction of the existence of circumstances which led
the accuser
iii. such secondly mentioned belief as to the existence of the circumstances must be based upon
reasonable grounds that is such grounds , as would lead any fairly cautious man in the
defendants situation to believe so
iv. The circumstances so believed and relied on by the accuser must be such as amount to a
reasonable ground for belief in the guilt of the accused. It is the responsibility of the plaintiff to
show that there was no reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution of the case. If the
defendant can be shown to have initiated the prosecution without the himself holding an honest
belief in the truth of the charge, it cannot be said that he acted upon reasonable and probable
cause. The fact that the plaintiff has been acquitted is not prima facie evidence that the charge
was unreasonable and false. Lack of reasonable and probable cause is to be understood
objectively, it does not connote the subjective attitude of the accuser. The fact that the accuser
himself thinks that it is reasonable to prosecute does not per se lead to the conclusion that he had
a reasonable and probable cause.
4. Malice
Malice for the purposes of malicious prosecution means having any other motive apart from that
of bringing an offender to justice. Spite and ill-will are sufficient but not necessary conditions of
malice. Malice means the presence of some other and improper motive that is to say the legal
process in question for some other than its legally appointed and appropriate purpose. Anger and
revenge may be proper motives if channeled into the criminal justice system. The lack of
objective and reasonable cause is not an evidence of malice but lack of honest belief is an
evidence of malice. In Allen v. Flood a general rule was propounded that an act lawful in itself
does not merely become unlawful because of the bad motives of the actor and some of their
lordships in the House of Lords suggested that malicious prosecution was not really an exeption
to this rule. The setteled rule is that malice is the gist of the action for malicious prosecution and
must be proved by the plaintiff in the first instance. It is for the plaintiff to prove that there was
an existence of malice i.e the Burden of Proof lies upon the plaintiff.
Evidence of Malice
Malice may be proved by previously staines relations, unreasonable or improper conduct like
advertising of the charge or getting up false evidence. Though mere carelessness is not per se
proof of malice unreasonable conduct like haste, recklessness or failure to prove enquiries would
be some evidence. When there is absence of some reasonable cause qwing to defendants want of
belief in the truth of his charge is the conclusive evidence of malice. However the converse
proposition is not true because a person may be inspired by malice and also has a reasonable
belief in the truth of his case. There may be malice either in commencing a prosecution or
continuing one, honestly began. The mere fact that criminal prosecution resulted in acquittal or
discharge of the accused will not establish that the defendant had acted with malice.
5. Damages
It has to be proved that the plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of the prosecution complaint
of. Even though the proceedings terminate in favour of the plaintiff, he may suffer damage as a
Page 31 of 48

result of the prosecution. The damages may not necessarily be pecuniary. Acc to HOLT C.J. s
classic analysis in Savile v. Robert [5]there could be three sort of damages any one of which
could be sufficient to support any action of malicious prosecution.
1) The damage to a mans fame as where the matter whereof he is accused is scaldalous
2) The damage done to a person as where man is put to a danger of losing his life , limb or
liberty
3) The damage to a mans property as where is forced to expend money in necessary charges , to
acquit himself of the crime of which he is accused
The damage must also be the reasonable and probable results of malicious prosecution and not
too remote. In assessing damage the court to some extent would have to consider
1) The nature of the offence the plaintiff was charged of
2) The inconvenience to which the plaintiff was charged to
3) Monetary loss and
4) The status and prosecution of the person prosecuted
Malicious Civil Proceeding
An action will not lie for maliciously and without reasonable and propable cause instituting suit
the reason stated to be is that such a case dose not necessarily and naturally involve damage to
the party sued. The civil action which is false will be dismissed at the hearing. The defendants
reputation will be cleared against all imputations made against him and he will be awarded costs
against the opponent. The law dose not award damage for mental anxiety, or extra costs incurred
beyond those imposed on unsuccessful parties.
CASES OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
In the Kamta Prasad v National Buildings Constructions Corporation Pvt Ltd. The officer of the
respondent corporatin found certain articles missing while preparing inventory and checking up
with the stock register. The plaintiff was prosecuted under sec. 403 of the I.P.C. but was given
the benefit of doubt and hence acquitted. The plaintiff brought an action for malicious
prosecution. The plaintiff could not prove that he had been harassed by the officers. There was
held to be reasonable and propable case for prosecution of the plaintiff and the4 fact that plaintiff
was not harassed indicated that there was no malice and hence the charge was not held.
In Girija Prasad v Uma Shankar Pathak
the plaintiff was a practicing advocate at Panna in M.P. he was also a Jan Sangh leader and had
started an agitation on the question of food scarcity in the city and one Jan Sangh worker had
gone to a hunger strike. On Jan 2 1965 Girija Singh a sub inspector was deputed outside the
collectorate to control the crowd that had collected there to support the agitation. Then there
were some bullet shots made from the revolver of the sub inspector. He stated that while he was
grappling with some person who was assaulting him the revolver got fired mistakingly. On that
date Girija Singh had lodged an FIR stating that he was assaulted by some person.his watch
snatched and also the plaintiff Uma Shankar pathak was present at the scene and was instigating
the crowd against him . the case was investigated and the plaintiff was arrested on 15th jan and
released on bail on 18th jan. he was finally acquitted on june 30th 1965 . the plaintiff then sued 4
Page 32 of 48

persons for malicious prosecution , the sub inspector Girija Prasad who lodged the F.I.R. , the
S.H.O. of that area who entertained the report and two other persons involved with the case.
It was found by the M.P. High court that the report prepared by Girija Prasad was false and at
that relevant time the plaintiff was not present there but was appearing infront of a civil judge
Justice Verma. Eventually Girija Prasad was held for malicious prosecution and others acquitted
of the charge and not held liable for malicious prosecution.
RECENT CASE
Vishweshwar
Shankarrao
Deshmukh
and
Anr
v.
Narayan
Vithoba
Patil
Facts of the case

The plaintiff was the sarpanch of the village Shirputi in the year 1980 and the defendant no. 1
was in the service as a Gram sewak under the Zila Parishad and the defendant no.2 was a teacher
in a school run by the Zila Parishad. The plaintiff contended that he made several reports against
the defendants for their misconduct. The report was made against defendant no.1 for his
misbehavior, defalcation and forgery of accounts and also against defendant no.2 for his absence
from duties and other irregularities. It is contended that both the defendants then hatched a
conspiracy to involve the plaintiff in a criminal conspiracy and such that the defendant no.1 had
lodged an F.I.R. with the police that was assaulted by the plaintiff while he was discharging his
duties. On the basis of the F.I.R and investigation done by the police, criminal proceedings were
launched against the plaintiff.. The plaintiff was acquitted of the charges against him. It is
contended that on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by the defendant no.1 , plaintiff was arrested bt
the police and the criminal proceeding against him was with malicious intention on the part of
the defendants. The prosecution was launched without any reasonable cause and due to the false
prosecution, there was a loss to his prestige and reputation and his status was lowered down in
the society being a sarpanch and a politician.
DECISION
The court decided that the plaintiff was maliciously prosecuted by the defendants without any
reasonable and propable cause , and therefore they are liable to pay damages worth Rs 12,500.00
to the plaintiff
CONCLUSION
Malicious prosecution is an abuse of the process of the court by wrongfully setting the law in
motion on a criminal charge. In order to succeed the plaintiff must prove that there was a
prosecution without any just and reasonable cause, initiated by malice and the case was decided
in the plaintiffs favour. It is necessary to prove that damages were incurred by the plaintiff as a
result of the prosecution. The burden of proof rests on him. He has to prove the existence of
malice.
Malice may be proved by previously stained relations, unreasonable and improper conduct like
advertising the charge or getting up false evidence. Though mere carelessness is not the per se
proof of malice, unreasonable conduct like haste, recklessness or failure to make enquiries would
be some evidence.
Malicious prosecution is the malicious institution of unsuccessful criminal or bankruptcy or
liquidation proceedings against another without reasonable or probable cause. This tort balances
competing principles, namely freedom that every person should have in bringing criminals to
justice and the need for restraining false accusations against innocent persons. Malicious
Page 33 of 48

prosecution is an abuse of the process of the court by wrongfully setting the law in motion on a
criminal charge. It is an effort to disturb the proper functioning of the judicial machinery.
f) Nervous Shock.
Liability of Psychiatric Damages in Indian and Foreign
Jurisdictions
Psychiatric Injury- which is also known as Nervous Shock is a pretty new area, has gained
much importance. It is used to describe a claim where the claimant might claim for
compensation even though she has not clearly received any physical harm.
Now, what do we mean by Psychiatric Damages?
Medical Definition: In medicine, circulatory failure marked by a sudden fall of blood
pressure and resulting in pallor, sweating, fast (but weak) pulse, and sometimes completes
collapse. Its causes include disease, injury, and psychological trauma. In shock, the blood
pressure falls below that necessary to supply the tissues of the body, especially the brain.
Treatment depends on the cause. Rest isneeded, and, in the case of severe blood loss,
restoration
of
the
normal
circulating
volume.
Psychiatric damages are also known as nervous shock in English law. It comes under the
ambience of negligence. When an injury is done to a person by some actions, which are
either negligent, or intentional, or also due to omission of any particular action it is
recoverable
under
Psychiatric
Damages.
The Medical Specifications regarding Psychiatric Damages
In this part we discuss the medical specifications which are required for an action to be
recoverable under Psychiatric Damages. According to the Law Commission Report of U.K
[249] are two main conditions which are to be fulfilled:
A Recognizable Psychiatric Illness
According to Lord Bridge- It is first very important to establish that the person is
not sufferingfrom only grief, or normal emotional stress but its must be a positive psychiatric
illness. According any recognizable psychiatric illness would comprise morbid depression,
hysterical personal disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, pathological stress disorder and
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. There should also be expert medical witness or reports by
medical experts proving the above facts. For mere anxiety, emotional outbreak etc, the law is
not bound to give compensation.
Test of Reasonable Forseeability
The Law Commission considered that the Psychiatric Damages should be tested beyond a
simple Forseeability test. It suggested that a reasonable Forseeability test should be used. The
first case in U.K. to be followed in this regard was Delieu v White & Sons.In this case it was
decided that the plaintiff should be able to recover only when the danger is reasonable
Page 34 of 48

enough to be nervous or receive mental shock. This test varies according to the circumstances
of
the
different.
But in this case there are two points which are to be noted.
First, in applying the reasonable forseeability test the defendant must presume that the
plaintiff is a prudent woman who has a normal standard of forseeability. Then when the
plaintiff has established her prudent nature and that it would be normal for a reasonable
woman to suffer the nervous shock she suffered in the particular case, she is entitled to
recover full compensation.Second, foreseeability of the psychiatric illness is considered ex
post facto in the light of all that has happened. Unless hindsight is used, [t]he question
ceases to be whether it is foreseeable that a reasonably robust person would have suffered
psychiatric illness as a result of what actually happened and becomes instead whether it is
foreseeable that such a person would have suffered psychiatric illness as a result of what
might have happened but did not in fact do so.
Thus we see that the judge must see herself to be a reasonable, prudent woman, when
deciding the cases of psychiatric damages. In the words of Lord Bridge, the judge should
decide a particular case relying on her own opinion as that of a reasonably educated woman.
History of Psychiatric Damages Origin of Psychiatric Damages:
The courts initially were very slow in dealing cases regarding psychiatric damages. Initially
they denied claims of psychiatric injury which did not result from a physical harm-as was
seen in the case of Victorian railways commissioner v. Coultas. In this the defendants had
negligently drove the carriage onto the railway tracks while the train was on the verge of
crossing the place. No physical harm occurred, but the plaintiff who pregnant received
nervous shock and this unfortunately lead to her miscarriage. The courts held that the
plaintiff was not entitled to receive compensation as there was no physical harm caused. This
decision was so taken because then, people did not have much knowledge about the working
of peoples mind. But the view gradually started changing with time. It was first seen in the
case of Deliue v White where a carriage was driven into a pub, where the plaintiff, a lady was
working. She was terrified by such an event and had a miscarriage. The courts upheld her
claim and took a bold approach which opened a new area of claim.
Evolution of cases regarding psychiatric damages:

This part of the chapter is dealt with in two parts. The former part looks into the development
of cases regarding this type of damages in various foreign jurisdictions like U.K., U.S.A. The
next part looks into the same within the Indian jurisdiction.
ForeignJurisdictions:
U.K.
Page 35 of 48

When we talk of any particular type of cases the U.K jurisdiction is the first thing that comes
to our mind. So first I will deal with the evolution of cases regarding psychiatric damages
with regard to the
English jurisdiction.
As mentioned in the previous sub-part the first cases regarding psychiatric claims were as
early as 1888, when the case of Victorian railways commissioner v. Coultas arose. But after
that various cases arose and as the scientific knowledge of people regarding how the human
mind works increased, things began to be looked in a very different way, which will be
regarded
in
the
following
cases.
The first hint of change was when in Delieu v White the court gave compensation for
nervous shock which was not caused due to physical injury. Thus the thing called impact
theory which said that no nervous shock would be recognized without physical injury was
abandoned. This was done to cover a new category of plaintiffs whom we call secondary
victims. These things are dealt with in details in the next chapter. Such situation occurred in
1925 when a mother, who was pregnant and was leading her three other children to school.
When she left her children near the school a lorry came rushing and the woman was terrified.
As a result she had a miscarriage. Here again she was a secondary victim but her claim was
granted.
After the above mentioned case there wan no case of nervous shock until 1943 when there
arose a chance for further expansion of victims. But it was denied on the ground of
forseeability. In this case a pregnant lady came down from the tram and heard about an
accident. Later on she went to the accident site, saw blood and received mental shock
resulting in miscarriage. But in this case her claim was not granted because the accident was
not considered reasonably foreseeable. But this decision was contradicted in Boardman v.
Sanderson where the plaintiff was compensated even when she heard the heard the accident
that
involved
her
son
and
then
arrived
just
after
the
accident.
Thus we see that in English jurisdiction the view of the judges changed quite a lot as time
passed. In the beginning nervous shock without physical harm was denied. But then the
impact theory was ultimately abolished. Then the law further expanded in McLoughin v.
OBrian where the accident involved the plaintiffs children and husband. But she was about
two miles away from the scene. But when she was informed and she arrived at the hospital
she saw the miserable condition of the family members and received a nervous shock and
severe persisting psychiatric illness. Here she was compensated on the ground as a secondary
victim.
U.S.A
Now I move onto the history of how cases evolved in U.S.A. Here to similar to U.K the
courts were lethargic about cases on psychiatric damage. In lot of cases compensation was
denied on the ground of being out of the zone of danger. But the first case which was
decided for the plaintiff was Dillion v. Legg[15] where a little girl was injured in a car
Page 36 of 48

accident. Her mother and sister suffered nervous shock after seeing that and sued for
compensation .The court told that from this case onwards the case should be dealt with the
test of forseeability not by seeing whether they were in the zone of danger. The reason that
was given was that sometimes some close relations can cause psychiatric damages even
though she is not within the so-called zone of danger. Henceforth in the cases in U.S.A this
reasoning applied and refined according to the circumstances which we will deal in brief in
this
chapter.
In 1989 a minor son was injured and when his sister informed her mother, she came running
only to see her son unconscious and covered with blood. As a result she had a nervous shock.
Here the trial judge decided in favor of the plaintiff, the mother[16]. Here thus we see a
notifiable change, in the case of Dillion v. Legg the trial judge did not give compensation to
the plaintiff, but the higher court did. Here the trial court did not hesitate to give
compensation. This we see that the situations were changing with time. After the case of
Dillion v. Legg [17]the criteria of being near the accident zone, having a relation to the
accidentee was considered a full-proof test for justice in these cases.
Indian Jurisdiction
It was generally seen that the Indian courts were quite liberal regarding the cases of
psychiatric damages. According to the Madras high court the impact theory was totally a
wrong test to determine in cases of nervous shock, because the body was controlled by the
nervous system and even though if there is no harm done to the party physically, yet the
nervous system could be affected. This was also due to the fact that cases regarding nervous
shock came as late as during the 1950s. In the case of Halligua v Mohansundarum. The
Madras
High
court
held
the
aforesaid
decision.
The generosity of Indian courts can also be found in cases like Lucknow Development
Authority v. M.K Gupta where damages were give to the plaintiff because of the harassment
which Mr. Gupta, the plaintiff received from the Government officials. This decision was
followed in many similar cases like Gazhiabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh. It can
also be seen in cases like Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjot Alhuwalia. Here the plaintiff
suffered nervous shock when their child was left in a vegetative state due to negligence of the
defendant, where she was taken for treatment.
Determination of Plaintiff and Defendant
To determine who the plaintiff is where the injury is not so visible is tough and so a lot many
unbiased cases could come up. Which could lead to different many theories of determining
one? So in order to generalize this a bit; Based on the reasonability test victims are divided in
two categories for the convenience in providing compensation:
Primary Victims
Secondary Victims
It was Lord Oliver, in his judgment in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police,
according to him the two potential victims are a passive and unwilling witness of injury
caused to others.
Page 37 of 48

Primary Victim
An injured plaintiff who was involved mediates or immediately as a participant is known as
the primary victim. This category plaintiff description had a wider scope with was later
modified in Page v Smith[23] which narrowed the scope describing primary victims as
people who were directly involved in accident and well within the range of foreseeable
injury. But the case judgment further covers rescuers, involuntary participation and people
who
got
shock
for
the
fear
of
own
safety.
Secondary victims:
The position of secondary victims is governed by the decision in Alcock v Chief constable of
South Yorkshire[24], one who suffers psychiatric damage even though not directly related to
the accident. Even then secondary victims can only claim for compensation if she falls under
the category of control mechanism as explained below.
Control Mechanism
Lord Wilberforce in Mcloughlin v. O Brian case held that a secondary victim needs to satisfy
three additional control mechanisms to limit the scope:
1. Proximity of relationship with immediate victim:- That is the secondary victim was in a
close relationship of love and affection with the immediate victim; such as spouses, parents,
children and scope of the relations stated above can be expanded to fianc, grandparents etc.
2. Proximity in time and space to the events causing the psychiatric illness: According to
situation in particular case the plaintiff must have witnessed the actual accident or aftermath
but within short space of time (some liberty is provided under this criteria provided according
to situation)
3. The means by which the psychiatric illness is caused: - Information received by third party
is not considered because of being exposed to circumstances or subsequent reflection on
event is different from witnessing an event and its aftermath.
SUDDEN SHOCK
requirement:
According to Lord Ackner the sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event
which violently agitates the mind Shock must be sudden and it is presumed that it happens
when there is close relationship with victim. The accident which takes place should be
qualified enough so that a reasonable presumption can be made that a normal woman would
suffer psychiatric damage. A shock is clearly not required in cases of psychiatric illness
induced through stress at work. Thus, to sum up a defendant is liable as mentioned above.
Compensation to be paid to primary victim and secondary victims covered under control
mechanism and also to plaintiff who are victim by sudden shock; which varies from situation
to situation. Whereas NO LIABLITY LIES ON THE DEFENDANT WHERE THE
CLAIMANT
IS
MERELY
INFORMED
ABOUT
THE
ACCIDENT.
Present Law regarding liability of Psychiatric Damages [Foreign Jurisdictions- UK, USA]
Page 38 of 48

The law regarding the liability of psychiatric damages has been in different jurisdictions
different. In this chapter we intend to look mainly the current acts which regulate the liability
of
nervous
shock
in:
UK: Protection of Harassments Act, 1997
USA: Based on Case law UK In England the law regarding liability of nervous shock is seen
to by the Protection of Harassments Act, 1997.Under the section 1(2) of this act it is said: For
the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know
that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same
information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other. The
other condition which is needed to be fulfilled for claiming of damages is given under section
7(3) which is as follows:
(3) A course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two occasions
3A) a persons conduct on any occasion shall be taken, if aided, abetted, counseled or
procured
by
another
(A) To be conduct on that occasion of the other (as well as conduct of the person whose
conduct it is); and
b) to be conduct in relation to which the others knowledge and purpose, and what he ought
to have known, are the same as they were in relation to what was contemplated or reasonably
foreseeable at the time of the aiding, abetting, counseling or procuring.Thus this act tells us
that the person can claim for compensation if the criteria of harassment and if the course of
conduct as mentioned in the act is fulfilled.
Thus in the case of Wainright v Home Office where the plaintiff Alan Wainright and his
mother went to the prison to meet his stepbrother who had been imprisoned for dealing with
drugs . The police had no idea, from where he got supply of drugs and they were ordered to
strip-search everyone who visited him. Thus while strip-searching the son; the officer
accidentally touched the penis. A psychiatrist concluded that the son had suffered severe
nervous shock and thus could read or write correctly, also his mother had suffered nervous
shock which was not expressly visible. The Wainrights sued the Home Office for
compensation. The judges held that a claim cannot be given affirmed if a merely negligent
act contrary to general principles, give rises to claim for damages for distress because its
affects privacy rather than some other interest like bodily safety.USA
in the United States of America there is no such act for dealing with liability of psychiatric
damages- it is mainly based on case-laws. As of now forseeability is the basic core of
judgments reasoning. The courts also do not differentiate between physical and psychiatric
injury. Though the approach followed by the judges is to recognize the victim through the
criteria that the psychiatric injury suffered by the victim is not a result of a physical injury but
on the other hand for a successful claim damage should be supplemented with a physical
injury,
that
too
within
the
scope
of
immediate
risk.
A case which can thus be referred here is Consolidated Railway Corporation v Gottshall.
Here the crew member filed a suit of emotional distress on the basis that he was forced to
participate & observe the events surrounding a fellow employees death because of the
circumstances created by the authoritys negligence. This type of injury was not recognized
Page 39 of 48

in Federal Employees Liability Act but as the case was passed the law stated in this was
interpreted in a different sense, hence following rules for such claims were decided by the
court the proper test for evaluating such claims was under which court determines whether
the factual circumstances provide a threshold assurance that there is likelihood of genuine
and serious emotional injury and if so evaluates the claim in light of traditional tort concepts,
with the forces resting on plaintiffs injury.
Second important aspect here is forseeability in another case called Consolidated Railway
Corporation v Alan Carisle. In this case a crew member got compensation on the basis that he
was forced to work in unfavorable conditions due to which he got emotional distress.on the
basis of these we could thus infer that even though no act is passed for psychiatric damages
in the USA judges have adjudicated on the basis of forseeability of a reasonable woman.
Thus giving it a hope of development.
Indian Approach on cases of Psychiatric DamagesIn India, the area regarding the liability of
tort law is not very much developed. A well known case in this regard is the case of Lucknow
Development Authority v M K Gupt . In this case the Lucknow Authority failed to provide a
flat to the plaintiff MK Gupta in due course of time as stated by it during the time of payment
for it. In such a situation the plaintiff filed for compensation under harassment and mental
agony. He was granted compensation on the ground that the judgment socially benefited the
victim and so in the part of the judgment stating to grant relief was also paid.From the above
case we can very rightly infer that India does not have any statute regarding liability for
nervous shock. Cases regarding psychiatric damages are adjudicated on the basis of
reasonability of a prudent woman.
Further many cases have come up for psychiatric damages like the case of Ghaziabad
Development Authority v Balbir Singh and Haryana Development authority v Vijay
Aggarwal where the same line of judgment was followed. But this was again distinguished in
the case of Gazhiabad Development Authority v UOI where there was a contract for a plot
which was delayed in giving than the date specified date in the contract. Here the court
looked the case only from the point of the contract and followed The Specific Relief Act,
1963; without taking into account any aspect of tort. Here the Supreme Court also said that it
was improper for compensating the plaintiff for mental languishment.
From this we can very well point out that the major cases that have come up regarding such
damages are related to Consumer Protection Act.
One such case is that of Jose Philip Mamphilli v Premier Automobile Ltd in which the
maximum compensation has been paid for mental agony, in India. The basic facts of this case
are that a defective car was sold to the plaintiff Mr. Jose as a brand new car, who suffered
from nervous shock as a result of this. The manufacturer chose to deny liability for such a
trivial matter and contested the case. S N Variacuc In his judgment quoted that There is no
doubt that appellant has to suffer mental agony in taking delivery of a defective car after
having paid to the dealer for a brand new car and taking the car again and again to the dealer
for repairs. The plaintiff was thus entitled to a compensation of Rs 40,000. Here arises the
question
of
how
much
compensation
to
be
awarded.
Now quoting the latest judgment regarding nervous shock in which damages were paid was
Page 40 of 48

Bangalore Development Authority v Syndicate Bank. clearly states that the amount of
compensation will depend on the fact of each situation, nature of harassment, the period of
harassment, & nature of arbitrary or capricious or negligent action of the authority which led
to
such
harassment."
Thus just one act regulating the rules which govern a person suffering from mental illness
and authority taking care of her is governed by the Mental Health Act, 1987 which is the only
legislation in India in this area of tort. The rest of the aspects are dealt in the manner as
explained
above.
Conclusion and Suggestions
Thus we can conclude that in various jurisdictions the law was although different, yet it was
not very wide apart. We see that in UK the judges were initially quite reluctant to compensate
victims very easily. The law was mainly based on impact theory concerning victims
directly related to the accident. Later on of course the secondary victims were also taken into
account. Also now a law has been enacted by the British Parliament Protection of
Harassment Act, 1997 to ensure the correct compensation of such victims. Whilst we see that
in USA the law is still entirely based on case-laws. Before like the UK, here too only direct
victims were compensated- those in the zone of danger. As happened in UK this was also
overruled in a case [Dillion v Legg] which enabled the indirect victims to be compensated.
The case was a little different in India. The judges here were a bit more generous in giving
compensation. But this was due to the fact that cases arose quite late, and by that time
scientific knowledge of woman was much advanced than it was during the early cases in UK.
In India the Mental Health Act, 1987 was also later on passed that looked into cases on
mental
agony
and
harassment.
After this briefing about all the aspects of liability of pschiatric damages we would like to
suggest that firstly, this law need to be codified keeping in mind all the situations that can
take place and flexible enough to provide compensation for victim in unforeseeable
situations. Also basis on which it needs to be just on should be wided. Its scope should
expand. For instance victim who is subject to gradual torture also suffer some mental
imbalance, secondary victim who is not in any relation with the victim suffer a shock because
act he saw was so grieve in nature; so on and so for. Further people should be made aware
about this. In context to India we already have an act on how to maintain mental patients if
we can think about this we need to first fix liability of their expenses. On the larger picture,
humanitarian institutions need to stretch there hand, convention, protocol or a universal act
would act much better. For this kind of liability in law is still developing I hope small
chances as stated above will be of great help.
g) Trespass to Person and Property.
The Tort Of Trespass
Trespass means illegally entering in someone else's property. There are two kinds of trespass,
Trespass to a person and Trespass to land.
Page 41 of 48

Trespass to person: This category of torts deals with the threat of, or actual use of unlawful force
against a person. There are three types of torts in this category: Battery, Assault, False
Imprisonment.
Battery: It basically deals with actual use of unlawful force against a person. In order or a person
to prove a tort of battery, one needs to show the following things: one needs to show that there
was a use of force. The force need not have to be great. For example throwing water or spitting
on a person is a battery. Also it must be proven that the use of force was without any legal
justification and the use of force was intentional. By this I mean that an accident will not
constitute battery as long as there was no negligence involved.
Assault: the tort of assault occurs when the defendant does something that causes a reasonable
fear of battery in the mind of the plaintiff. By this I mean that assault occurs when something
scares the plaintiff that he is going to be subjected to use of force. Also the defendant should
have the ability to harm the plaintiff. . for example if a person in a hospital having fractures in his
body and is plastered and he says you I will bash you', it is not an assault. Also assault comes
before battery takes place.
1.
False Imprisonment: This is tort that constitutes trespass against a person. This takes
place when a person is deprived his liberty or he totally restrained from it. False imprisonment
occurs when a person is locked in a lock up i.e. n a jail or even in a room. The restraint must be
imposed without any lawful justification, then only he can be said to be falsely imprisoned.
Trespass To Land
There are different signboards which could be seen at different places stating NO
TRESSPASSING. In law of torts, trespass to land means to interfere with someone's possession
of land without any lawful justification. Trespass can be committed by the trespasser himself
entering the land, or by the trespasser doing it by using some object. An example of this would
be a person throwing stones in the property of another person while remaining physically out of
the property. Trespass can be committed intentionally, negligently or even accidently. Tort of
trespass does not require any actual damage.
h) Domestic Violence as a crime and tort.
Note: refer to the following link: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1961958
i) Principles for the application of the rules and defenses- Enterprises engaged in
hazardous activities. (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India)
In India, absolute liability is a standard of tort liability which stipulates that
where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results
to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous
activity resulting, for example, in escape of toxic gas the enterprise is strictly and absolutely
liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to
any of the exceptions which operate vis--vis the tortious principle of strict liability under the
rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.[4]
Page 42 of 48

In other words absolute liability is strict liability without any exception. This liability standard
has been laid down by the Indian Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas
Leak Case). These exceptions include:
Plaintiffs own mistake
Plaintiffs consent
Natural disasters
Third Partys mistake
Part of a statutory duty
The Indian Judiciary tried to make a strong effort following the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, December,
1984 (Union Carbide Company vs. Union of India) to enforce greater amount of protection to the
Public. The Doctrine of Absolute Liability can be said to be a strong legal tool against rogue
corporations that were negligent towards health risks for the public. This legal doctrine was
much more powerful than the legal Doctrine of Strict Liability developed in the UK case
Rylands Vs. Fletcher. This meant that the defaulter could be held liable for even third party
errors when the public was at a realistic risk. This could ensure stricter compliance to standards
that were meant to safeguard the public.
j) Salient features of Motor Vehicle Act, Accident Claims, Motor Vehicle Tribunal, Noise
and Air Pollution and Safety, Health and Environment issues.
The Motor Vehicles Act18, 1988 has been applicable to whole India and has been prepared to
achieve the following objectives:
I. To take care of the fast increasing number of both commercial vehicles and personal vehicles
in the country.
II. The need for encouraging adoption of higher technology in automotive sector.
III. The greater flow of passenger and freight with the least impediments so that islands of
isolation are not created leading to regional or local imbalances
IV. Concern for road safety standards, and pollution-control measures, standards for
transportation of hazardous and explosive materials.
V. Simplification of procedure and policy liberalizations for private sector operations in the road
transport field.
VI. Need for effective ways of tracking down traffic offenders.
VII. Rationalization of certain definitions with additions of certain new definitions of new types
of vehicles.
VIII. Stricter procedures relating to grant of driving licences and the period of validity thereof.
IX. Laying down of standards for the components and parts of motor vehicles;
Page 43 of 48

X. Standards for anti-pollution control devices.

XI. Provision for issuing fitness certificates of vehicles also by the authorized testing stations.
XII. Enabling provision for updating the system of registration marks.
XIII. Liberalized schemes for grant of stage carriage permit on non nationalized routes, all-India
Tourist permits and also national permits for goods carriages.
XIV. Administration of the Solatium Scheme by the General Insurance Corporation.
XV. Provision for enhanced compensation in cases of no fault liability and in hit and run motor
accidents.36
XVI. Provision for payment of compensation by the insurer to the extent of actual liability to the
victims of motor accidents irrespective of the class of vehicles
XVII. Maintenance of State registers for driving licences and vehicle registration.
XVIII. Constitution of Road Safety Councils.
XIX. The introduction of newer type of vehicles and fast increasing number of both commercial
and personal vehicles in the country.
XX. Providing adequate compensation to victims of road accidents without going into long
drawn procedure.
XXI. Protecting consumers interest in Transport Sector.
XXII. Concern for road safety standards, transport of hazardous chemicals and pollution control.
XXIII. Delegation of greater powers to State Transport Authorities and rationalizing the role of
public authorities in certain matters.
XXIV. The simplification of procedures and policy liberalization in the field of Road Transport.
XXV. Enhancing penalties for traffic offenders.
XXVI. Modification and amplification of certain definitions of new type of vehicles.
XXVII. Simplification of procedure for grant of driving licences.37
XXVIII. Putting restrictions on the alteration of vehicles.
XXIX. Certain exemptions for vehicles running on non-polluting fuels.
XXX. Ceilings on individuals or company holdings removed to curb benami holdings.
XXXI. States authorized to appoint one or more State Transport Appellate Tribunals.
XXXII. Punitive checks on the use of such components that do not conform to the prescribed
standards by manufactures, and also stocking / sale by the traders.
XXXIII. Increase in the amount of compensation of the victims of hit and run cases.
XXXIV. Removal of time limit for filling of application by road accident victims for
compensation.
XXXV. Punishment in case of certain offences is made stringent.
XXXVI. A new pre-determined formula for payment of compensation to road accident victims
on the basis of age / income, which is more liberal and rational.
Salient Features of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Relating to Awarding of Compensation in
Motor Accident Cases
The relevant provisions relating to awarding of compensation in Motor Vehicle Accidents has
been provided in Chapter X, Chapter XI and Chapter XII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. These
chapters deal with following subjects:
1. Chapter X deals with No Fault Liability in certain cases.
2. Chapter XI of the Act deals with Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third Party Risk, and
3. Chapter XII of the Act deals with establishment of Claims Tribunals, application for and
award of compensation in cases of accidents arising out of use of Motor Vehicles, recovery of
Page 44 of 48

amount of compensation from insurer as arrears of land revenue and other procedural and
incidental matters.
Motor vehicles play a conspicuous role in the modern industrial economyand in
shaping our natural and built environment. Cars and light trucks offer rapid, reliable, and
convenient mobility on demand to an ever-growing number of people in
countries throughout the world. But for all their positives, automobiles carry with them many
negatives. No one disputes that motor vehicles collectively contribute to a number of important
and pressing social problems. Vehicles are a major source of both air pollution and congested
roads, particularly in urban areas, where vehicle concentration is the greatest. They also
contribute to global warming, accounting for a large and growing share of greenhouse gas
emissions worldwide. In addition, many hold the rapid increase in vehicle ownership and use
responsible for the decentralization of urban areas and the negative effects of the resulting urban
sprawl. Rapid growth in numbers of vehicles worldwide ensures that these issues will remain
important for the foreseeable future.
Vehicles are a major contributor to air pollution around the world. Vehicles account for most of
the carbon monoxide (CO), and a large share of the hydrocarbons (HC), nitrogen oxides (NOx),
and particulates in major urban areas. Much of the effort to reduce pollution from vehicles to
date has been in the form of increasingly strict emissions standards on new cars sold in the
developed countries. These controls have reduced emissions of CO, HC, and, to a lesser extent,
NOx despite large increases in the number of vehicles and miles driven. Although new cars have
become dramatically cleaner over time, many highly polluting vehicles are still on the road,
including trucks, busses, motorcycles, and older cars.
The transport sector is a major contributor to greenhouse gases. In the United States, about
20% of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions come from motor vehicles, and in developing countries
emissions are growing apace with motorization. Reducing such emissions from vehicles means
reducing fossil fuel use. That means that a tax on the carbon content of fuel is an almost ideal
policy instrument against global warming. However, raising fuel taxes to reduce carbon
emissions is an instrument with varying political prospects around the world. Past experience
suggests that opposition to higher fuel prices will be particularly erce in the United States and
perhaps in other countries with a history of low fuel prices.
Vehicles and the Urban Environment
There is no doubt that increased vehicle ownership and use are associated with more dispersed
and less dense development in urban areas around the world. What is more uncertain is how
serious a problem this is, and what can be done to mitigate it. Because motorists do not pay the
full social costs of driving, vehicle use and the associated sprawl of urban areas is too great. In
addition, there are complex interactions of vehicle use and urban structure. Do certain types of
development patterns lead to more driving and more decentralization? And, conversely, to what
extent can alternative development patterns, such as mixed-use and more-compact residential
patterns, reverse this trend?
A number of studies have attempted to look at how urban development patterns affect vehicle
ownership and use, and the evidence is somewhat mixed. Most empirical studies do not nd
that land-use variables have a large effect on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) compared to other
factors that inuence vehicle use. In addition, urban-density levels appear to have a greater effect
on vehicle ownership than on vehicle use.
What is clear is that the cost of driving has decreased over time in most urban areas. This
Page 45 of 48

alone can cause more driving and more decentralization. In addition, with more decentralization
comes more congestion along with increased demand for road building, which is much less
costly
at the outer edges of cities. More road building leads to more development, in a continuing cycle
that results in large, low-density urban areas.
Policiesto mitigate these effects can be grouped into those that are regulatory or those that
rely on prices or markets to change behavior. The most common regulatory policies in the
United States have been growth controls and growth boundaries. Market-based policies have
included parking fees, high-occupancy vehicle lanes on major roadways, and vehicle-ownership
taxes. Perhaps the most promising policy on the horizon is electronic pricing of roadway use.
MODULE-IV: Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
a) Aims and objective of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
SALIENT
FEATURES
"JAAGO GRAHAK JAAGO"
The salient features of 1986 CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT are:
1 It applies to all goods and services unless specifically exempted by the Central Government
2 It covers all the sectors whether private, public, cooperative or any person. The provisions of
the Act are compensatory as well as preventive and punitive in nature.
3 It enshrines the following rights of Consumers:
Right to be protected against the marketing of goods and services which are hazardous to life and
property
Right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods or
services so as to protect the Consumers against unfair trade practices.
Right to be assured, wherever possible, access to a variety of goods and services at competitive
prices.
Right to be heard and to be assured that Consumers interests will receive due consideration at
appropriate fora.
Right to seek redressal against unfair trade practices or unscrupulous exploitation of Consumer
and Right to Consumer education
4 The Act also envisages establishment of Consumer Protection Councils at the central, state and
district levels, whose main objectives are to promote and protect the rights of Consumers.
5 To provide a simple, speedy and inexpensive Redressal of Consumer grievances, the Act
envisages a three-tier quasi-judical machinery at the national, state and district levels. These are
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission known as National Commission
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions known as State Commissions
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum known as District Forum
6 The provisions of this Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any
other law for the time being in force.
b) Concept of a consumer and consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
c) Shift from Caveat Emptor to Caveat Venditor.
Note: for (b) & (c) refer to the class notes and the Bare Act.
Page 46 of 48

d) Consumer Protection Councils under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

District forum
This forum has power to solve the problems of consumers up to Rs. 500000 at district level.State
govt. has power to make suitable numbers of district forum for protecting the rights of
consumers.This forum can be made by district judge and other experienced persons in the field
of law and commerce.
State commission
Consumer can also appeal to state commission against the decisions of district forum. State
commission has power to solve the problems of consumers from Rs. 500000 to Rs.2000000. This
commission can be made by state high court judges and 2 experts in the field of commerce and
laws.
National Commission
National commission has power to solve all consumers disputes and problems more than
2000000 Rs. The chairperson of this commission will be the retired Supreme Court judges and
other 4 experts in the field of commerce and laws and industry. Out of four, it is necessary to
include one lady member in the four expert team.
MODULE-V: Redressal Mechanism
a) Redressal mechanism under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986- District Forum, the State
Commision and the National Commission.
b) Initiation of Proceedings. Grievances Redressal Procedure of Consumer Disputes Redressal
Agencies. Powers of CDRAs. Remedies available under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Note: Refer to the class notes and study material that shall be given.
SUGGESTED READINGS
1. The Law of Torts--- Ratanlal & Dhirajlal
2. Tort--- Winfield and Jolowicz.
3. Law of Torts--- R.K. Bangia.
4. Law of Consumer Protection in India--- Dr. D.N. Saraf.
5. Law of Consumer Protection in India--- Dr. Avtar Singh.
6. The Law of Consumer Protection in India--- Dr.Gurjeet Singh.
7. Law of Torts--- Salmond
ESSENTIAL CASE LAWS
1. Bhim Singh v. State of J & K and others.
2. Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar.
3. Rylands v. Fletcher 1868 LR HL, 330.
4. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 1987 1 SCC 395.
5. Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India AIR 1989 SC 248.
6. Donoghue v. Stevenson 1932 SC 31.
7. State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidyawati & Others AIR 1962 SC 1039.
8. M/s. Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P. AIR 1965 SC 1039.
9. Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspaper Ltd.
10. Bird v. Jones 1945 7 QB 742.
11. Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (19494) ISCC 243.
12. A. C. Modagi v. cCrosswell Tailor, (1991) II CPJ 586.
Page 47 of 48

13. Indian Medical Assn. v. V.P. Shantha (1995) 6 SCC 651.

14. Consumer Unity and Trust society v. St. of Rajasthan (1991) II CPJ 56 Raj.
Page 48 of 48

Law of Torts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Law of Torts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

A Study material submitted for LL.B. First Semester

Siddhartha Law College, Dehradun

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

TIME ALLOWED: 3 HRS.

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

11. Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (19494) ISCC 243.

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

-what does it mean to find someone at fault?

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

Basically covers two classes of activities:

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

This can best be explained with some case laws:

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

MODULE-II: Justification in Tort/ General Defenses

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

Plaintiff the Wrongdoer.

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

MODULE-III: Specific Torts

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

2. The Statement Must Refer to the Claimant

How Can we Identify the Claimant

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

3. The Statement must be Published

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

The defendant breached that duty, either totally or partially.

The plaintiff suffered damage as a result of this breach of duty.

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

d) Assault, Battery and mayhem.

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

Facts of the case

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

Evolution of cases regarding psychiatric damages:

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT