NEED FOR QUASI PARENTAL

AUTHORITY AS A DEFENCE IN
LAW OF TORTS
Submitted to Dr. Aneesh V. Pillai
[Faculty: Law of Torts]

Submitted by- Soumya Jha

Semester - III
Section - A
Roll No-154

DATE OF SUBMISSION 1st September 2014

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

RAIPUR, C.G.
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
03
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
04
INTRODUCTION
05
CHAPTERS
i.

Global Economic Crisis An Introduction

06
ii. Causes of Economic Slowdown
08
iii. Indian Economy and Its Features
10
iv. Impact of Global Meltdown on Indian
12
Economy
- Negative impact
13
- Positive impact
15
- Inference
16

CONCLUSION
17
References
19

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

At the outset, I would like to express my profound gratitude and deep regards to my teacher,
Dr. Aneesh V. Pillai for putting his trust in me, giving me a project topic such as this,
providing me with all the help and resources possible and also for showing his faith in me to
deliver.
My gratitude also goes out to the extremely helpful and cooperative staff and administration
of HNLU for the infrastructure in the form of library and IT lab that was a source of great
help for the completion of this project.

-Soumya Jha
(Semester-III)

INTRODUCTION
Tort is a large area of private law concerned with compensating those who have been injured
by the wrongdoing of others. Unlike criminal law, which involves the State, law of torts
involves private parties who institute legal actions against each other for damages. Unlike
contract law, where two parties agree to their respective rights and obligations, in law of torts,
it is the society, through its judicial and legislative systems, that imposes obligations on
everyone to act in consideration of the rights of others. The law of Torts is mainly judgemade law: courts over the centuries have defined people rights and obligations with respect to
their fellows. These are constantly in flux and change to meet new technological and social
concerns. Further ahead, it lays down various remedies available to the injured party for their
injury arising in the due course of the tort committed on them.
However, to curb the misuse of this law by giving unreasonable and unrestricted powers in
the hands of the victim party, the defendants are also provided with various defenses under
this law for proving their defense. Some of which are: Volenti Non Fit Injuria, Inevitable
Accident, Act of God, Act of Necessity, Act in relation to Private Defense, Statutory
Authority, Quasi-Parental Authority so on and so forth.
This paper hereunder envision to understand the specific defense of Quasi-Parental Authority
in torts and hence lays down its essential ingredients, circumstances favourable for using this
as a defense, present status of India in regards to the same and most importantly, its need as a
defense in the law of torts in India

CHAPTER I

QUASI-PARENTAL AUTHORITY(MEANING & CONCEPT)

Parental or quasi-parental authority is a specific defense in torts by virtue of which a
defendant can be excused of the tortuous liability arisen under the aforementioned
relationship between the parties. Parental authority can be defined as the ensemble of rights
and powers that the law accords to the father and mother with respect to the persons and the
goods of their unemancipated minor children, to the end of their accomplishing the duties of
protection, education and support that are incumbent on them 1. Quasi- parental (parent- like)
authority means authority of a person to act in a manner which is similar to that exercised by
parents on their children. It is a provision in torts made for the persons who are either parents
or share an authority similar to that of parents for their protection against tortuous liabilities.
There are also several kinds of authority in the way of summary force or restraint which the
necessities of society require to be exercised by private persons. And such persons are
protected in exercise thereof, if they act with good faith and in a reasonable and moderate
manner. Parental authority is the most obvious and universal instance.2
For example, custodians of lunatics. Persons having the lawful custody of a lunatic, and those
acting by their direction, are justified in using such reasonable and moderate restraint as is
necessary to prevent the lunatic from doing mischief to himself or others, or required,
1 http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Authority+of+Parents, Retrieved 26th August 2014
2 Cleary v. Booth, 1993 1 QB 465, A school masters delegated authority is not bounded by the walls of the
school

according to competent opinion, as part of his treatment. This may be regarded as a quasipaternal power ; but the person entrusted with it is bound to use more diligence in informing
himself what treatment is proper than a parent is bound (I mean, can be held bound in a court
of law) to use in studying the best method of education. The standard must be more strict as
medical science improves. A century ago lunatics were beaten, confined in dark rooms, and
the like. Such treatment could not be justified now, though then it would have been unjust to
hold the keeper criminally or civilly liable for not having more than the current wisdom of
experts. In the case of a drunken man, or one deprived of self-control by a fit or other
accident, the use of moderate restraint, as well for his own benefit as to prevent him from
doing mischief to others, may in the same way be justified.

CHAPTER II

WHAT IS A LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY

When a tort is committed in an attempt to discipline a child or a lunatic person or a drunk
person, there exists a defense in torts called Quasi-Parental Authority.

AUTHORITY OF PARENTS
Parents and other adults who serve as custodians of minor children have the responsibility
and authority to care for, educate, and discipline their children. The state confers wide
discretion on parents on the manner in which they discipline their children, short of legal
child abuse or neglect. Spankings, slaps on the wrist, and other physically coercive measures
are regarded as normal parenting by many, and the state will not intervene when these
measures are taken by biological parents3. For example, the Official code of Georgia
Annotated, which is the compendium of all laws in the U.S. of Georgia, authorizing physical
forms of discipline so long as there is no physical injury to the child 4. Also law of Missouri
establishes immunity for discipline, including spanking administered in a reasonable fashion5.

3 Pg. 113, Sir Friedrick Pollock, THE LAW OF TORTS, London Steven and Sons Limited (4th Edition, 1895)
4 Ga. Code Ann. 49-5-180(5)(A) (1990)
5 Pg. 115, Sir Friedrick Pollock, THE LAW OF TORTS, London Steven and Sons Limited (4th
Edition, 1895)
6

Further, in the case of Th People v. Paul George Checketts 6, it was held that a child under
confinement by the parents for the formers welfare would not amount to the tort of false
imprisonment.
AUTHORITY OF GUARDIANS
Guardians for the purview of exercising parental authority includes Uncle, Aunt, Brother,
Sister, Cousin, Teacher, Custodian etc7. The guardians can legally exercise the authority
under quasi-parentship on the child. Similar was held in the case of Cleary v. Booth 8, where it
was held that the quasi-parental authority delegated on a schoolmaster, doesnt not remain
confined to the walls of the school. Further, imprisonment of a child by father as a
punishment would not amount to False imprisonment, held in the case of Reg. v. Jackson9

CHAPTER III

QUASI-PARENTAL AUTHORITY
(A DEFENSE IN TORTS)

Quasi Parental Authority is a specific defense used by the defendants in cases of commission
of specific torts like Battery, False Imprisonment etc.
In Battery
Similar to a biological parent who has the custody and control over the child, right to
discipline the child in a reasonable manner rests with step parent, guardians, school masters so
on and so forth. One essential ingredient in bring this authority under the purview of defense
is the use of reasonable amount of force. Reasonableness is of the major importance here as
the spanking a child, which amount to battery could tolerate the defense of parental or quasi
6 773 So. 2d 1213
7 Pg. 246, C.G. Addison, Addison on Torts: a treatise on wrongs and their remedies, Gale, Making of Modern
Law (2010)

8 1993, 1 Q.B. 465

9 1991, 1 Q.B. 671
7

parental authority. However, Maim done by parents or guardians on the child cannot sustain
this as their defense because the force used in Maim cannot be reasonable for disciplining a
child10. Further ahead, in the case of David Lee v. State of Florida 11, it was held that the
parents using force in excess going beyond the test of reasonableness would suffer tortuous
liability of maim.
In False Imprisonment
False Imprisonment is another tort where the defense of parental or quasi-parental authority
could be exercised by the parents when a minor child is falsely confined by the parents or the
guardian for his welfare. Further ahead, in the case of Wilson v. Hammersmith 12, that curfew
on a child at night was not false imprisonment on the part of the parents. Hence, restriction of
parents or guardians or confinement by the teachers or the school or hostel wardens with
reasonableness does not amount to a tort. However, in case where the child was punished n a
confinement for two days without any access to food or water was held to have amounted to
tort13.

CHAPTER IV

QUASI-PARENTAL AUTHORITY IN INDIA

There hasnt been many cases of quasi-parental authority in India. However, in an attempt to
exercise the authority under the ambit of quasi parental or parental, there has been a deviant
shift to the increasing number of corporal punishment in India 14. UNICEF, for the purpose of
it defined corporal punishment as any punishment in which physical force is used and
intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light. Most involves hitting

10 State v. Singleton, 41 Wash. App. 721

11 (1869) L.R. 4 H.L. 171, found in W.E.B. Ball, Principles of Torts and Contracts, London Steven
and Sons Limited (1880)
12 60 L.J.Q.B. 346
13 Vaughvan v. Taff Vale, (1860) L.R. 4 C.P. 629
14 http://www.unicef.org/india/reallives_5449.htm Retrieved, 26th August, 2014
8

(smacking, slapping, spanking) children, with the hand or with an implement. In the
view of the Committee, corporal punishment is invariably degrading.
In addition, there are other non-physical forms of punishment that are also cruel and
degrading and thus incompatible with the Convention. These include, for example,
punishment which belittles, humiliates, denigrates, scapegoats, threatens, scares or ridicules
the child.
Further ahead, it quoted that Two out of three school going children in India are physically
abused says the national report on child abuse by the Ministry of Women and Child
Development in 2007. The crime is rampant in every single district of the country.In addition
to the same, it included other non-physical forms of punishment that are also cruel and
degrading and thus incompatible with the Convention. These include, for example,
punishment which belittles, humiliates, denigrates, scapegoats, threatens, scares or ridicules
the child.
Article 21 of the Constitution protecting the right to life is the first point of reference. The
Child Rights Charter 2003 of India specifically states All children have a right to be
protected against neglect, maltreatment, injury, trafficking, sexual and physical abuse of all
kinds, corporal punishment, torture, exploitation, violence and degrading treatment.
Prohibition and elimination of corporal punishment in schools is identified as a priority in the
2005 National Plan of Action for Children and the report on child protection in the National
Plan for 2007-2012. The National Policy on Education (1986, modified 1992) states that
corporal punishment will be firmly excluded from the educational systems.
In August 2007, the NCPCR also wrote to all chief secretaries with detailed guidelines
recommending practical steps for the elimination of corporal punishment. In December of the
same year, the Human Resource Development Ministry also wrote to all Chief Secretaries
recommending that corporal punishment be prohibited in all schools in the jurisdiction of the
state government as it severely affects the human dignity of the child, thereby reducing
his/her self esteem and self confidence.
A Right to Education Bill (Bill No. LXV of 2008), which would achieve prohibition, has
been
No

placed
child

in

shall

Rajya
be

Sabha

subjected

and
to

awaits

enactment.

It

categorically

physical

punishment

or

mental

states:

harassment.

Whoever contravenes the provisions shall be liable to disciplinary action under the service
rules applicable to such person.

CONCLUSION : WHETHER OR NOT NEEDED

Children due to fear are often silent and submit to violence without questioning. They
sometimes show signs of deep hurt in their behaviour but this often goes unnoticed,
perpetuating further violence on them. More often than not, when a teacher uses violence on
children it is an outburst of his/her personal frustration. V.K. Vijayan, Professor, Institute of
Mental Health, Kilpauk is of the opinion that corporal punishment not only affects the
emotional behaviour and academic performance of a child, but also leads to reduction in self
esteem and dignity of child. There is a large body of international research detailing the
10

negative outcomes of corporal punishment. Some of the conclusions are presented below:
Escalation: Mild punishments in infancy are so ineffective that they tend to escalate as the
child grows older. The little smack thus becomes a spanking and then a beating.
Encouraging violence: Even a little slap carries the message that violence is the appropriate
response to conflict or unwanted behaviour. Aggression breeds aggression. Children
subjected to physical punishment have been shown to be more likely than others to be
aggressive to siblings; to bully other children at school; to take part in aggressively anti-social
behaviour in adolescence; to be violent to their spouses and their own children and to commit
violent crimes.
National commissions on violence in America, Australia, Germany, South Africa and the UK
have recommended ending corporal punishment of children as an essential step towards
reducing all violence in society.
Psychological damage: Corporal punishment can be emotionally harmful to children.
Research especially indicts messages confusing love with pain, and anger with submission
are the most psychologically harmful. I punish you for your own sake. You must show
remorse no matter how angry or humiliated you are.

References:Bibliography
-

Sir Friedrick Pollock, THE LAW OF TORTS, London Steven and Sons Limited (4 th

Edition, 1895)
C.G. Addison, Addison on Torts: a treatise on wrongs and their remedies, Gale,

Making of Modern Law (2010)

W.E.B.Ball, Principles of Torts and Contracts, London Steven and Sons Limited
(1880)
11

Ratanlal & Dhirajlals, The Law of Torts, LexisNexis India, (26th Edition, 2013)

Webliography
-

http://www.unicef.org/india/reallives_5449.htm Retrieved, 26th August, 2014

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Authority+of+Parents, Retrieved

26th

August 2014

12