Tort derived from the Latin word tortum, which means to twist.

It includes that conduct

which is not straight or lawful. It is equivalent to the English term wrong.

Salmond- It is a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action for
unliquidated damages and which is not exclusively the breach of a trust or other merely
equitable obligation.

We may define tort as a civil wrong which is redressible by an action for unliquidated
damages and which is other than a mere branch of contract or breach of trust

Distinction between Tort and crime-

Tort Crime

i) Less serious wrongs are considered as i) More serious wrongs have been considered
private wrongs and have been labelled as to be public wrongs and are known as crimes.
civil wrong.

ii) The suit is filed by the injured person ii) The case is brought by the state.
himself.

iii) Compromise is always possible. iii) Except in certain cases, compromise is

not possible.

iv) the wrongdoers pays compensation to the iv) The wrongdoer is punished.
injured party.

Distinction between Tort and breach of contract-

Breach of contract Tort

i) It results from breach of a duty undertaken i) It occurs from the breach of such duties
by the parties themselves. which are not undertaken by the parties but
which are imposed by law.

ii) In contract, each party owes duty to the ii) Duties imposed by law of torts are not
other. towards any specific individual but towards
the world at large.

iii) Damage of contract is liquidated. iii) Damage of tort is unliquidated.

iv) It provides limited remedy iv) It provides unlimited remedy.

Distinction between Tort and Breach of trust-

Tort Breach of Trust

i) Damage of tort is unliquidated. i) Damage of breach of trust is liquidated.

ii) Law of tort was part of common law. ii) Law of trust was part of Court of
Chancery.

iii) Tort is partly related to the law of iii) Trust is a branch of law of property.
property.

Latin terms and maxims-

Causa causans- An immediate and effective cause.

Causa sine quanon- A necessary cause; the cause without which the thing cannot be
or the event would not have occurred.

Some preceding link but for which the causa causans, that is, the immediate cause
could not have become operative.

East India Commercial Co. v. Collector of Customs, AIR 1962-

Municipal Board v. State Transport Authority, AIR, 1965-

Prem Bus Service v. R.T.A, AIR 1968-

Chockalingam v. C.I.T, AIR, 1963-

Inayatullah v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, AIR, 1958-

Volenti non fit injuria- There is no injury to one who consents.

Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club- The plaintiff was a spectator at a motor car race
being held at Brooklands on a track owned by the defendant company. During the race,
there was a collision between two cars, one of which was thrown among the spectators,
thereby injuring the plaintiff. It was held that the plaintiff impliedly took the risk of such
injury, the danger being inherent in the sport which any spectator could foresee, the
defendant was not liable.

Padmavati v. Dugganaika- While the driver was taking the jeep for filling petrol in the
tank, two strangers took lift in the jeep. Suddenly one of the bolts fixing the right front
wheel to the axle gave way toppling the jeep. The two strangers were thrown out and
sustained injuries, and one of them died as a consequence of the same.

It was held that neither the driver nor his master could be made liable, first, because it
was a case of sheer accident and, secondly, the strangers had voluntarily got into the
jeep and as such, the principle of volenti non fit injuria was applicable to this case.

Wooldrige v. Sumner- The plaintiff, who was a photographer, was taking photographs
at a horse show while he was standing at the boundary of the arena. One of the horses,
belonging to the defendant, rounded the bend too fast. As the horse galloped furiously,
the plaintiff was frightened and he fell into the horses course and there he was seriously
injured by the galloping horse. The horse in question won the competition. It was held
that since the defendants had taken due care, they were not liable. The duty of the
defendants was the duty of care rather than duty of skill.

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio No action arises from a wrongful consideration.

Hardy v. Motor Insurers Bureau- This was a case where a security officer was
dragged along when he tried to stop a car. Lord Denning MR said: no person can claim
reparation or indemnity for the consequences of a criminal offence where his own
wicked and deliberate intent is an essential ingredient in it It is based on the broad
rule of public policy that no person can claim indemnity or reparation for his own wilful
and culpable crime. He is under a disability precluding him from imposing a claim.
Revill v. Newberry- An elderly allotment holder was sleeping in his shed with a
shotgun, to deter burglars. On hearing the plaintiff trying to break in, he shot his gun
through a hole in the shed, injuring the plaintiff. At first instance, the defendant
successfully raised the defence of ex turpi to avoid the claim.

Damnum sine injuria Damage without wrongful act; damage or injury inflicted without
any act of injustice; loss or harm for which there is no legal remedy. It is also
termed damnum absque injuria.

There are cases in which the law will suffer a man knowingly and wilfully to inflict harm
upon another, and will not hold him accountable for it.

Gloucester Grammar School Case- The defendant, a schoolmaster, set up a rival

school to that of the plaintiffs. Because of the competition, the plaintiffs had to reduce
their fees from 40 pence to 12 pence per scholar per quarter. It was held that the
plaintiffs had no remedy for the loss thus suffered by them.

Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor Gow and Co.- A number of steamship companies
combined together and drove the plaintiff company out of the tea-carrying trade by
offering reduced freight. The House of Lords held that the plaintiff had no cause of
action as the defendant had by lawful means acted to protect and extend their profits.

Ushaben v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir The plaintiffs sued for a permanent

injunction against the defendants to restrain them from exhibiting the film named Jai
Santoshi Maa. It was contended that the film hurt the religious feelings of the plaintiff in
so far as Goddesses Saraswati, Laxmi and Parvati were depicted as jealous and were
ridiculed. It was observed that hurt to religious feelings had not been recognized as a
legal wrong. Moreover, no person has a legal right to enforce his religious views on
another or to restrain another from doing a lawful act, merely because it did not fit in with
the tenets of his particular religion. Since there was no violation of a legal right, request
of injunction was rejected.

Action v. Blundell The defendants by digging a coal pit intercepted the water which
affected the plaintiffs well, less than 20 years old, at a distance of about one mile. Held,
they were not liable. It was observed: The person who owns the surface, may dig
therein and apply all that is there found to his own purposes, at his free will and
pleasure, and that if in the exercise of such rights, he intercepts or drains off the water
collected from underground springs in the neighbours well, this inconvenience to his
neighbour falls within description damnum abseque injuria which cannot become the
ground of action.

Injuria sine damno- This maxim means injury without damage. Wherever there is an
invasion of a legal right, the person in whom the right is vested is entitled to bring an
action and may be awarded damages although he has suffered no actual damage.
Thus, the act of trespassing upon anothers land is actionable even though it has done
the plaintiff not the slightest harm.

Ashby v. White

Bhim Singh v. State of J & K The petitioner, an MLA, of J & K Assembly, was
wrongfully detained by the police while he was going to attend the Assembly session.
He was not produced before the Magistrate within the requisite period. As a
consequence of this, the member wad deprived of his constitutional right to attend the
Assembly session. There was also violation of fundamental right guaranteed under the
Constitution. By the time the petition was decided by the Supreme Court, Bhim Singh
had been released, but by way of consequential relief, exemplary damages amounting
to 50,000 were awarded to him.

Terminologies
Malice- A condition of mind which prompts a person to do a wrongful act wilfully, that is,
on purpose, to the injury of another, or to do intentionally a wrongful act toward another
without justification or excuse.

In its legal sense it means a wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or
excuse.

Malice is a wish to injure a party, rather than to vindicate the law. Malice of two types:

i) Malice in fact

ii) Malice in law

Malice in fact Means an actual malicious intention on the part of the person who has
done the wrongful act. It is also called express or actual malice.

Malice in law It is not necessarily personal hate or ill will, but it is that state of mind
which is reckless of law and of the legal rights of the citizen.

Motive Motive is that which incites or stimulates a person to do an act. It is the moving
power which impels to action for a definite result.

Motive is mainspring of human action. It is cause or reason. It is something which

prompts a man to form an intention.

Intention A settled direction of the mind towards the doing of a certain act; that upon
which the mind is set or which it wishes to express or achieve; the willingness to bring
about something planned or foreseen.

Injury- In legal parlance, injury means any wrong or damage done to another, either in
his person, rights, reputation or property.

Meaning under Penal Code, 1860 (section 44) the word injury denotes any harm
whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property.
Hurt Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause
hurt.

Malfeasance it is a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do, or any
wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts, or interferes with performance of official duty,
or an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law or which a person ought not to
do at all, or has contracted not, to do.

The word malfeasance would apply to a case where an act prohibited by law is done by
a person. (Khairul Bahsar v. Thana Lal AIR 1957)

Misfeasance Unlawful use of power; wrongful performance of a normally legal act;

injurious exercise of lawful authority; official misconduct; breach of law.

The word misfeasance would apply to a case where a lawful act is done in an improper
manner.

Nonfeasance - Non performance of some act which ought to be performed, omission to

perform a required duty at all, or total neglect of duty.

Nonfeasance would apply to a case where a person omits to do some act prescribed by
law.

Distinction between Misfeasance, nonfeasance and malfeasance Misfeasance is

the improper doing of an act which a person may wilfully do. Nonfeasance means the
omission of an act which a person ought to do. Malfeasance is the doing of an act which
a person ought not to do at all.

Remedies
Remedies are of two types- (i) judicial and (ii) extra-judicial.

Judicial remedy is of three types:

(i) Damages, (ii) Injunction and (iii) Restitution of property

Types of damages -

a) Exemplary or Vindictive damages are damages on an increased scale,

awarded to the plaintiff over and above what will barely compensate him for his
property loss, where the wrong done to him was aggravated by circumstances of
violence, oppression, malice etc.

b) Ordinary or Real damages are compensation for general damage. General

damages are those which the law implies in every breach of contract and in every
violation of a legal right.

c) Nominal damages They are awarded for the vindication of a right where no real
loss or injury can be proved.

d) Contemptuous damages -

Injunction- A judicial process operating in personam, and requiring a person to whom it

is directed to do or refrain from doing a particular thing. Law as to the injunction is
contained in the Specific Relief Act 1963 and the CPC 1908. Types of injunction

(i) Mandatory When, to prevent the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to

compel the performance of certain acts, the Court may in its discretion grant an
injunction to prevent the breach (s. 55 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877).

(ii) Permanent or perpetual By perpetual injunction a defendant is perpetually

enjoined from the assertion of a right, or from the commission of an act, which would
be contrary to the rights of the plaintiff (s. 53, the Specific Relief Act, 1877).

(iii) Temporary Temporary injunction is such as is to continue until a specified time,

or until the further order of the Court. It is regulated by the CPC (s. 53, The Specific
Relief Act, 1877; CPC Order XXXIX Rule 1.
(iv) Ad-interim -

Restitution of property Restitution means restoration of anything to its rightful owner.

Extra-judicial remedies are-

i) Self defence The use of force to protect oneself, ones family, or ones property
from a real or threatened attack.

ii) Expulsion of trespassers Forcibly evicting the trespasser.

iii) Reception of chattels Chattel means movable or transferable property; personal

property.

iv) Re-entry of land

v) Abatement of nuisance Abatement is the act of eliminating or nullifying; the act

of lessening or moderating.

vi) Distress damage feasant the right to seize animals or inanimate chattels that
are damaging or encumbering land and to keep them as security until the owner
pays compensation.

Who may sue and who may be sued

Every person can sue in case of tort including the minor with the consent of his guardian
or the court.

The following persons cannot sue-

i) Citizen of foreign state If a citizen of foreign country wants to file a suit against
a Bangladeshi or a other citizen of foreign country, he has to file an application to the
Home Ministry through the Law Ministry (s. 83 of CPC)
ii) Alien enemy Every person residing in a foreign country the Government of which
is at war with, or engaged in military operations against Bangladesh and carrying on
business without a license will be regarded as an alien enemy.

Alien enemies residing in Bangladesh with the permission of the Government, and
alien friends may sue. No alien enemy residing in Bangladesh without such
permission or residing in a foreign country shall sue (s. 83 of CPC)

iii) Foreign state A foreign state cannot sue unless it is recognized by the
Government.

vi) Bankrupt The guiding law in this regard is the Bankruptcy Act, 1997. If a person is
declared insolvent, his properties are taken over and a receiver is appointed as the
supervisor of that property. A bankrupt cannot sue as long as civil wrongs are
concerned.

v) Felons/Convicts Felon is a person who has been proven guilty and declared
with punishment but fled away. Convict is a person who has been proven guilty but
has not fled away.

A felon cannot file a suit. But a convict can file a suit.

vi) Corporation A corporation gets a legal entity when it is registered. No

unregistered corporation can file a suit.

vii) Child in mothers womb This is called pre-natal injuries.

Walker v. G.N. Ry. Co. of Ireland the plaintiff, a child, sued the railway company
for damages on the ground that he had been born crippled and deformed because
the injury was caused to it (before birth) by an accident due to railways negligence,
when the plaintiffs pregnant mother travelled on the defendants railway. It was held
that the defendants were not liable for two reasons. Firstly, the defendants did not
owe any duty to the plaintiff as they did not know about his existence; secondly, the
medical evidence to prove the plaintiffs claim was very uncertain.

Montreal Tramways v. Leveille The Supreme Court of Canada allowed an action

by a child born with club feet two months after an injury to its mother by the
negligence of the defendants.
 Majority of the writers are in favour of the view that an action for pre-natal injuries
should also be recognized, once that the act of the defendant is considered to be
tortious.

Who may not be sued -

i) President/head of the state According to Article 51(1) and 51(2) of the

Constitution, no civil or criminal suit can be filed against the President as long he is
holding the post of the President.

ii) Foreign sovereign No suit can be filed against a foreign sovereign unless a
consent to the same is obtained from that sovereign (s. 86 & 87).

iii) Ambassador / High Commissioners High Commission is an embassy from one

commonwealth country to another.

iv) Public servants The list of the public servants are given in s. 21, 13 & 14 of the
Penal Code, 1860. Also who are appointed through PSC are to be regarded as
public servants.

An application for consent from the Government is required before filing a suit
against them.

v) Corporation Unless it is a registered corporation, a suit cannot be filed against it.

vi) Infant / Minor According to the Penal Code, a minor is a child of 9 12 years. But
age of the minor varies in various Statues.

vii) Unsound mind There are various Act for lunatics and unsound minds, e.g. the
Lunacy Act, 1912.

Negligence

Essentials of negligence-

i) The defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff;

ii) The defendant made a breach of that duty; and

iii) The plaintiff suffered damage as a consequence thereof.

i) The defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintif

It means a legal duty rather than a mere moral, religious or social duty. There is no
general rule of law defining such duty. It depends in each case whether a duty exists.

Donoghue v. Stevenson A purchased a bottle of ginger beer from a retailer for the
appellant. She consumed that and seriously suffered in her health. She found some
snail at the bottom of the bottle. She sued for compensation. The defendant pleaded
that he did not owe any duty of care towards the plaintiff. The House of Lords held that
the manufacturer owed her a duty to take care that the bottle did not contain any
noxious matter, and that he would be liable on the breach of the duty.

Palsgraaf v. Long Island Railroad Co. The plaintiff with a package was trying to
board a moving train. Two servants of the defendant came to help her. One of them
pushed her from the back. At this moment the package fell on the rail track. The
package contained fireworks and it exploded. The plaintiff was injured. She sued the
defendants alleging negligence on the part of their servants. It was held that she could
not recover. Cardozo CJ said, the conduct of the defendants servant was not wrong.
Relatively to her it was not negligence at all.

Duty depends on reasonable foreseeability of injury

If at the time of omission, the defendant could reasonably foresee injury to the plaintiff,
he owes a duty to prevent that injury and failure to do that makes him liable.

No liability when injury is not foreseeable

Glasgow Corp. v. Muir The manageress of the defendant Corporation tea-rooms

permitted a picnic party. Two members of the picnic party were carrying a urn of tea
through a passage. There were some children buying sweets and ice-cream. Suddenly,
one of the persons lost his grip and the children including Eleanor Muir were injured. It
was held that the manageress could not anticipate that such an event would happen as
a consequence of tea urn being carried through the passage, and, therefore, she had no
duty to take precautions against the occurrence of such an event.
Reasonable foreseeability does not mean remote possibility

Bolton v. Stone A batsman hit a ball and the ball went over a fence and injured a
person on the adjoining highway. This ground had been used for about 90 years and
during the last 30 years, the ball had been hit in the highway on about six occasions but
no one had been injured. The Court of Appeal held that the defendants were liable for
negligence. But the House of Lords held that the defendants were not liable on the basis
of negligence.

Duty of care Booker v. Wenborn (1962) - The defendant boarded a train which had
just started moving but kept the door of the carriage open. The door opened outside,
and created a danger to those standing on the platform. The plaintiff, a porter, who was
standing on the edge of the platform was hit by the door and injured. It was held that the
defendant was liable because a person boarding a moving train owed a duty of care to a
person standing near it on the platform.

ii) Breach of duty Breach of duty means non-observance of due care which is
required in a particular situation. The law requires taking of two points into consideration
to determine the standard of care required: (a) the importance of the object to be
attained, (b) the magnitude of the risk, and (c) the amount of consideration for which
services, etc. are offered.

(a) The importance of the object to be attained

K. Nagireddi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh Due to construction of a canal by

the state government, all the trees of the plaintiffs orchard died. The plaintiff alleged that
the government due to negligence did not cement the floor. It was held that the
construction of canal was of great importance and to not cementing the floor was not
negligence from the state government.

(b) The magnitude of risk

Kerala State Electricity Board v. Suresh Kumar A minor boy came in contact with
overhead electric wire which had sagged to 3 feet above the ground, got electrocuted
thereby and received burn injuries. The Electricity Board had a duty to keep the
overhead wire 15 feet above the ground. The Board was held liable for the breach of its
statutory duty.
(c) The amount of consideration for which services, etc. are ofered

Klaus Mittelbachert v. East India Hotels Ltd. the question of liability of a five star
hotel arose to a visitor, who got seriously injured when he took a dive in the swimming
pool. It was observed that there is no difference between a five star hotel owner and
insurer so far as the safety of the guests is concerned. It was also observed, a five star
hotel charging high from its guests owes a high degree of care as regards quality and
safety of its structure and services it offers and makes available.

iii) The plaintif sufered damage It is also necessary that the defendants breach of
duty must cause damage to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also to show that the damage
thus caused is not too remote a consequence of the defendants negligence.

Res ipsa loquitur- It means the things itself speaks. When the accident explains only
one thing and that is that the accident could not ordinarily occur unless the defendant
had been negligent, the law raises a presumption of negligence on the part of the
defendant.

Hambrook v. Stokes Bors. Soon after parted with her children in a narrow street, a
lady saw a lorry violently running down the narrow street. When told by some bystander
that a child answering the description of one of her children had been injured, she
suffered a nervous shock which resulted in her death. The defendant was held liable.

Dickson v. Reuter

Contributory negligence

When the plaintiff by his own want of care contributes to the damage caused by the
negligence or wrongful conduct of the defendant, he is considered to be guilty of
contributory negligence. This is a defence in which the defendant has to prove that the
plaintiff failed to take reasonable care of his own safety and that was a contributing
factor to harm.
Rural Transport Service v. Bezlum Bibi (1980) The conductor of an overcrowded
bus invited passengers to travel on the roof of the bus. The driver ignored the fact that
there were passengers on the roof and tried to overtake a cart. As a result, a passenger
was hit by a branch of tree, fell down, received injury and died. It was held that both the
driver and the conductor were negligent towards the passengers, there was also
contributory negligence on the part of the passengers including the deceased, who took
the risk of travelling on the roof of the bus.

Yoginder Paul Chowdhury v. Durgadas (1972) The Delhi High Court has held that a
pedestrian who tries to cross a road all of a sudden and is hit by a moving vehicle, is
guilty of contributory negligence.

Doctrine of alternative danger

There may be certain circumstances when the plaintiff is justified in taking some risk
where some dangerous situation has been created by the defendant. The plaintiff might
become nervous by a dangerous situation created by the defendant and to save his
person or property, he may take an alternative risk. If in doing so, the plaintiff suffered
any damage, he will be entitled to recover from the defendant.

Jones v. Boyce (1816) The plaintiff was a passenger of defendants coach. The
coach was driven so negligently that the plaintiff jumped off the bus fearing an accident
and broke his leg. It was held that the plaintiff would be entitled to recover.

Shayam Sunder v. State of Rajasthan (1974) Due to the negligence on the part of
the defendants, a truck belonging to them caught fire. One of the occupants, Navneetlal,
jumped out to save himself from the fire, be struck against a stone lying by the roadside
and died. The defendants were held liable.