CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

A PROJECT OF
LAW OF TORTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
ACT
ON
WRONGFUL ACTS AS A CONSTITUENT OF
TORT CLAIM

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Mrs Sushmita Singh Shreya Sinha
Faculty of Law of Torts and Roll No. - 1648
Consumer Protection Act Semester 1st
B.BA LL.B
Session 2016-2021
 DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE

I hereby declare that the work reported in the BB.A. LL.B (Hons.) Project Report entitled
ANALYSIS OF THE TERM WRONGFUL ACT AS A CONSTITUENT OF TORT
CLAIM submitted at Chanakya National Law University, Patna is an authentic record of
my work carried out under the supervision of Mrs. Sushmita Singh. I have not submitted this
work elsewhere for any other degree or diploma. I am fully responsible for the contents of my
Project Report.

(Signature of the Candidate)

SHREYA SINHA
Chanakya National Law University, Patna

18/10/2016

[2]
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

IF YOU WANT TO WALK FAST GO ALONE

IF YOU WANT TO WALK FAR GO TOGETHER

A project is a joint endeavor which is to be accomplished with utmost compassion, diligence

and with support of all. Gratitude is a noble response of ones soul to kindness or help
generously rendered by another and its acknowledgement is the duty and joyance. I am
overwhelmed in all humbleness and gratefulness to acknowledge from the bottom of my
heart to all those who have helped me to put these ideas, well above the level of simplicity
and into something concrete effectively and moreover on time.

This project would not have been completed without combined effort of my revered Law of
Torts and Consumer Protection Act teacher Mrs SUSHMITA SINGH whose support and
guidance was the driving force to successfully complete this project. I express my heartfelt
gratitude to her. Thanks are also due to my parents, family, siblings, my dear friends and all
those who helped me in this project in any way. Last but not the least; I would like to express
my sincere gratitude to our Law of Torts and Consumer Protection Act teacher for providing
us with such a golden opportunity to showcase our talents. Also this project was instrumental
in making me know more about the term wrongful act and how it is a major constituent of a
tort claim. This project played an important role in making me understand more about the
different types of wrongful acts and the various tort claims arising due to the wrongful acts. It
was truly an endeavour which enabled me to embark on a journey which redefined my

[3]
intelligentsia, induced my mind to discover the intricacies involved in the tortious acts and
the claims arising due to the wrongful acts.

Moreover, thanks to all those who helped me in any way be it words, presence,
Encouragement or blessings...

- Shreya Sinha
- 1st Semester
- B.BA LL.B

CONTENTS
Aims and Objectives 6
Hypothesis 6
Research Methodology 6
Limitations 6
Review of Literature 6

1. Introduction ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7-8

2. Essentials or Constituents of Tort -------------------------------------------------------- 9-13
3. General Principles of Liability ---------------------------------------------------------- 14-15
4. Various Types of Torts ------------------------------------------------------------------ 16-27
a.) Trespass ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16-21
i) Trespass to Land ------------------------------------------------------------ 16-18
ii) Trespass to Person ---------------------------------------------------------- 18-20
iii) Trespass to Property -------------------------------------------------------- 20-21
b.) Negligence ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21-24
c.) Defamation --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24-26
d.) Nuisance ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 26-27
5. Conclusion and Suggestion ------------------------------------------------------------- 28
6. Bibliography ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 29-30
7. Citation ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 31

LIST OF CASES

1. Glasgow Corporation v. Taylor

2. Roger v. Rajendro Dutt
3. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwati

[4]
 4. General Cleaning Corporation Ltd. v. Christmas
5. Dhadphale v. Gurav
6. Ashby v. White
7. Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
8. Gloucester Grammar School Case
9. Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor Gow & Co.
10. Ushaben v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir
11. Rylands v. Fletcher
12. Donoghue v. Stevenson
13. Lale Punnalal v. Kasturich & Ramaji
14. Graham v. Peat
15. Stephens v. Myers
16. Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar
17. Meering v. Graham White Aviation Co.
18. Krik v. Gregory
19. Dulieu v. White and Sons
20. Bourhill v. Young
21. Bryne v. Boadle
22. Dixon v. Hondle

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

With this project the researcher intends to:

1. Analyze the wrongful acts as a constituent of tort claim.

2. Study whether a tort can be claimed without any wrongful act.
3. Various types of torts arising due to the wrongful acts.
4. Find out whether a tort can arise without wrongful act.
5. Find the types of damages for the torts arising due to the wrongful acts.

HYPOTHESIS

The researcher strongly believes that:

1. Wrongful acts are a constituent of tort claim
2. Without the commission of a wrongful act or omission of an act which is supposed to be done
no tort can be claimed.
3. Although there are some torts which even arise without any wrongful act.
4. Whether the tort arises due to wrongful act or without any wrongful act the victim/plaintiff is
entitled to receive damages/compensation.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

[5]
The researcher has used the doctrinal method of research in the completion of this project on
Analysis of the term Wrongful Act as a constituent of tort claim. The sources are mentioned
in the review of literature.

LIMITATIONS
The presented research is confined to a time limit of one month and this research contains
only doctrinal works which are limited to library sources.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The researcher intends to examine the secondary sources in thus project. The secondary
sources include books, websites, photographs, articles, e-articles and reports in appropriate
form, essential for this study.

[6]
 INTRODUCTION

The word tort is of French origin and is equivalent of the English word wrong, and the
Roman law term delict. The word tort has been derived from the Latin term tortum, which
means to twist. Thus tort means a conduct which is not straight or lawful, but, on the
other hand, twisted, crooked or unlawful. It is equivalent to the English term wrong. The
law of torts consists of various torts or wrongful acts whereby the wrongdoer/tortfeasor
violates some legal rights vested in another person. The law imposes a duty to respect the
legal rights vested in the members of the society and a person making a breach of that duty is
said to have committed a wrongful act. As crime is a wrongful act, which results from a
breach of duty recognized by the criminal law, a breach of contract is the non-
performance of a duty undertaken by a party to the contract, similarly tort is a breach of
duty recognized under the law of torts. For example, violation of a duty not to injure the
reputation of someone else results in the tort of defamation; violation of a duty not to
interfere with the possession of land of another person result in the tort of trespass to land;
and the violation of a duty not to defraud another results in the tort of deceit.1

Law of tort is concerned with the allocation and distribution of losses. This is a branch of law
governing actions for damages for injuries to private legal rights, for example, right to
property, right to personal security, right to personal reputation, etc. The word tort means in
1 Dr. R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts including compensation under Motor Vehicles Act and
Consumer Protection Laws (Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, Twenty-Third Edition,
2013)

[7]
law, a wrong or injury which deals with situations where a persons actions do not cause harm
to society in general but to a particular individual which has certain characteristics. Its most
important characteristic is that it is redressible in action for damages at the instance of the
injured person. Here the injured person can get damages/compensation from the wrongdoer
to the satisfaction of his injury.

According to the definition given by Salmond, A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a

civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action for un-liquidated damages, and
which is not exclusively the breach of contract or the breach of trust or any other merely
equitable obligation. Tort law deals with situations where a persons behaviour has unfairly
caused someone else to suffer loss or harm. A tort is necessarily an illegal act but causes
harm. The law allows anyone who is harmed to recover their loss. Tort law is different from
criminal law, which deals with situations where a persons actions cause harm to society in
general. A claim in tort may be brought by the particular individual who has suffered loss.
Criminal cases tend to be brought by the state, although private prosecutions are possible.

A person who suffers a tortious liability is entitled to receive compensation for damages,
usually monetary, for the person liable for those injuries. Tort law defines what a legal injury
is and, therefore, whether a person is may be held liable for an injury they have caused. Legal
injuries are not limited to physical injuries; they may also include emotional, economic, or
reputational injuries as well as violation of privacy, right to property or constitutional rights.
Tort cases therefore comprise varied topics as accidents, false imprisonment, battery, assault,
defamation, negligence, product liability (for defective consumer products), copyright
infringement, environmental pollution (toxic torts), etc.

So far no scientific definition has been possible which could mention certain specific
elements, the presence of which could constitute a tort as, for example it has been possible in
the case of a contract. The main reason for the same is that the different wrongs included
under this head of diverse species, each having its own peculiar historical background. Most
of the tortious wrongs owe their origin to the writ of trespass and the writ of trespass on the
case. These writs were not only responsible for the origin of this branch of law but many
other wrongs and legal principles originated from them. The law of contract, for instance, is
practically a gift of these writs. Apart from that, many torts had their origin independent of
these writs and their development has been fragmentary and piecemeal. As a matter of fact, it

[8]
 is an ever growing branch of law and has constantly developed and the area covered in its
ambit is continuously increasing.

Some Definitions of TORT

1. Tort means a civil wrong which is not exclusively a breach of contract or a breach of trust.
- Section 2(m), the Limitation Act, 1963
2. Tort is a civil wrong for which remedy is a common law action for un-liquidated damages
and which is not exclusively a breach of contract or the breach of trust or other merely
equitable obligation. Salmond
3. Tortious liability arises from the breach of duty primarily fixed by law: this duty is towards
persons generally and its breach is redressible by an action for un-liquidated damages.
Winfeild
4. Tort is an infringement of a right in rem of a private individual giving a right of
compensation at the suit of the injured party. - Fraser

The basic idea which is indicated by these definitions is Firstly, tort is a civil wrong, and
secondly, every civil wrong is not a tort. There are other civil wrongs also, the important of
which are a breach of contract and breach of trust.1

In much of the common law world, the most prominent tort liability is negligence. If the
injured party can prove that the person believed to have caused the injury acted negligently
that is, without taking reasonable care to avoid injuring others tort law will allow
compensation.

1
https://www.LAWyersclubindia.com/analysisofthetermwrongfulactasaconstiuentof
atortclaim.html

[9]
 ESSENTIALS OR CONSTITUENTS OF TORTS

The law of tort is fashioned as an instrument for making people adhere to

standards of reasonable behaviour and respect the rights and interests of one
another. A protected interest gives rise to a legal right, which in turn gives rise to
a corresponding legal duty. An act, which infringes a legal right, is wrongful act
but not every wrongful act is a tort. To constitute a tort or civil injury therefore:
1. There must be a wrongful act or omission on part of the defendant,
2. The wrongful act or omission should result in legal damage (injuria), i.e.,
violation of a legal right vested in the plaintiff, and
3. The wrongful act must be of such a nature as to give rise to a legal remedy in the
form of an action for damages.
The wrongful act or omission may however not necessarily cause actual damage
to the plaintiff in order to be actionable. Certain civil wrongs are actionable even
though no damage may have been suffered by the plaintiff. 1

1 http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/torts_s.htm

[10]
1. Wrongful Act or Omission

The first essential ingredient in constituting a tort is that a person must have
committed a wrongful act or omission i.e., he must have committed a breach of
that duty which has been fixed by the law itself. In order to make a person liable
for tort, he must have committed some act which he was not expected to do, or,
he must have omitted to do something which he was supposed to do. Either a
positive wrongful act or an omission which is illegally made will make a person
liable. The question, therefore, arises that what in law a duty is. It may mean
some legal limitation or restriction on the conduct of a person that he should
behave in such a manner as a reasonable person would have behaved in like
circumstances. If a person does not observe that duty like a reasonable and
prudent person or breaks it intentionally, he is deemed to have committed a
wrongful act. A wrongful act may be a positive act or omission which can be
committed by a person either negligently or intentionally or even by committing
a breach of strict duty. For example, if a person drivers his car at an excessive
speed in violation of law or fails to perform a duty as required by the law, or
beats a person in order to take revenge or keeps a lion which escapes and injures
a person on the road, he can be made liable for positive wrongful acts or
omission in negligence, battery or breach of strict duty, as the case may be.
Similarly, when there is a legal duty to do some act and a person fails to perform
that duty, he can be made liable for omission. For Example, if a corporation,
which maintains a public park, fails to put proper fencing to keep the children
away from a poisonous tree and a child plucks and eats the fruits of the
poisonous tree and dies, the Municipal Corporation would be liable for
omission.1 Similarly, if the Municipal Corporation, having control of a clock
tower in the heart of a city does not keep it in proper repairs and the falling of
the same results in the death of a number of persons, the Corporation would be
liable for its omission of taking care in the matter.2 In the same way, an
employer failing to provide a safe system of work would be liable for the

1 Glasgow Corp. v Taylor, (1922) 1 A.C. 44.

2 Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwati, A.I.R.1966 S.C. 1750.

[11]
consequences of such an omission.1

But it may be noted that the wrongful act or a wrongful omission must be the
one recognized by the law. If there is a mere social, moral or religious wrong
there cannot be a liability for the same. For example A was seriously ill and she
was all alone in her house. She requested her neighbour B to look after her. B
did that i.e. brought medicines for A, cooked for her and took care of her. A
became alright. After sometime B fell ill and coincidently she was also alone in
the house. She requested A to look after her. But A never acceded to her request
as a result B suffered a lot and became disabled. In this case B cannot take any
legal action against A as the duty is simply a moral duty and has not been fixed
by the law itself.

Even if it is a breach of a religious duty which is not imposed by law, an action

cannot be maintained. For Example, A servant of the Hindu temple had a right
to get the food offered to the idol. The defendant was under an obligation to the
idol to offer the food, but he did not do so. The servant, therefore, brought a suit
against him for damages. It was held that, in this case the defendant was not
under any legal obligation to supply food to the temples servant, and though,
his omission to supply food to the idol might involve loss to the plaintiff, it was
a breach of religious duty, and could not entitle the plaintiff to maintain a suit.2
In the case of, Roger v. Rajendro Dutt, the court held that, It is essential to an
action in tort that the act complained should under the circumstances be legally
wrongful as regards the party complaining, that is, it must prejudicially affect
him in some legal right.

So, therefore, duty must be from the very first fixed by law. But if an act has
been done voluntarily or under the influence of pressing danger, he will not be
deemed to have committed a breach of legal duty. Again if an act or omission is
done under some lawful excuse, it would not amount to breach of legal duty or a

1 General Cleaning Corporation Ltd. v. Christmas, (1953) A.C. 180: (1952) 2 All
E.R. 1110

2Dhadphale v. Gurav, (1881) 8 BOM122.

[12]
 wrongful act. For Example, a police officer in following a thief trespassed to the
land of Mr. B. Here the police officer will not be deemed to have committed a
breach of legal duty because of lawful excuse or justification.

The crucial test of a breach of legal duty or a legally wrongful act or omission,
however, is its prejudicial effect on its legal right of another person which is
dealt with under the heading legal damage i.e., infringement of a private legal
right, the second essential of tort. Because without injuria a person does not
become a tortfeasor.

2. Legal Damage

In order to be successful in an action for tort, the plaintiff has to prove that there
has been a legal damage caused to him. In other words, it has got to be proved
that there was a wrongful act an act or omission causing breach of a legal
duty or the violation of a legal right vested in the plaintiff. Unless there has been
violation of a legal right, there can be no action under law of torts. In general, a
tort consists of some act done by a person who causes injury to another, for
which damages are claimed by the latter against the former. In this connection
we must have a clear notion with regard to the words damage and damages. The
word damage is used in the ordinary sense of injury or loss or deprivation of
some kind, whereas damages mean the compensation claimed by the injured
party and awarded by the court to the parties.1 The word injury is strictly limited
to an actionable wrong, while damage means loss or harm occurring in fact,
whether actionable as an injury or not.

If there has been a violation of a legal right, the same is actionable, whether, as a
consequence thereof, the plaintiff has suffered any loss or not. This is expressed
by the maxim Injuria Sine Damno. Injuria means infringement of a right
conferred by the law on the plaintiff or an unauthorised interference, howsoever
trivial, with the plaintiffs right. Damnum means substantial harm, loss or
1http://
www.LAWyersclubindia.com/wrongfulactoromissionmustresultinlegaldamage.htm
l/

[13]
damage in respect of money, comfort, health or the like. Thus, when there has
been injuria or the violation of a legal right and the same has not been coupled
with damnum or harm to the plaintiff, the plaintiff can still go to the court of law
because no violation of legal right should go unredressed.

Since what is actionable is the violation of legal right, it therefore follows that
when there is no violation of legal right, no action can lie in a court of law even
though the defendants act has caused some loss or harm or damage to the
plaintiff. This is expressed by the maxim Damnum Sine Injuria which means
damage without violation of a legal right and it is not actionable in a court of
law. The reason for the same is that if the interference in the rights of another
person is not unlawful or unauthorised but a necessary consequence of the
exercise of his own lawful rights by the defendant, no action should lie. Thus,
the test to know whether the defendant should or should not be liable is not
whether the plaintiff has suffered any loss or not but the real test is whether any
lawful right vested in the plaintiff, has been violated or not.

Injuria Sine Damno

Injuria Sine Damno means violation of a legal right without causing any harm,
loss or damage to the plaintiff. There are two kinds of torts :
Firstly, those torts which are actionable per se, i.e., actionable without the
proof of any damage or loss. For instance, trespass to land is actionable even
though no damage has been caused as a result of the trespass.
Secondly, the torts which are actionable only on proof of some damage
caused by an act.
Injuria Sine Damno covers the first of above stated cases. In such cases, there is
no need to prove that as a consequence of an act, the plaintiff has suffered any
harm. For a successful action, the only thing which has to be proved is that the
plaintiffs legal right has been violated, i.e., there is injuria.
Ashby v. White is a leading case explaining the maxim injuria sine damno. In
this case the plaintiff succeeded in his action, even though the defendants act
did not cause any damage. The plaintiff was a qualified voter at a Parliamentary

[14]
Election, but the defendant, a returning officer, wrongfully refused to take
plaintiffs vote. No loss was suffered by the refusal because the candidate for
whom he wanted to vote won the election in spite of that. It was held that the
defendant was liable. If the plaintiff has a right, he must definitely have a
means to vindicate and maintain it, and a remedy, if he is injured in the exercise
of enjoyment of it; and indeed, it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a
remedy; for want of a right and want of a remedy are reciprocal. This is
expressed using the maxim, Ubi jus ibi remedium, which means where there
is a right there is a remedy.
In Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir,1 the petitioner, an M.L.A. of
J&K. Assembly, was wrongfully detained by the police officer 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
was deprived of his constitutional right to attend Assembly session. There was
also violation of fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article
21 of the constitution. By the time the petition was decided by the Supreme
Court, Bhim Singh was released, but by the way of consequential relief,
exemplary damages amounting to 50,000 was awarded to him.
In case of Injuria Sine Damno, the loss suffered by the plaintiff is not relevant
for the purpose of a cause of action. It may be relevant only as regards of
measure of damages. If the plaintiff has suffered no harm yet the wrongful act is
actionable, the question which arises is how much compensation is to be paid to
the plaintiff? In such a case, generally, nominal damages may be awarded. For
instance, the amount of compensation payable may be just five rupees. The
purpose of law is served in so far as the violation of legal right does not remain
without legal remedy. If, however, the court feels that the violation of legal right
is owing to mischievous and malicious act, as had happened in Bhim Singhs
case, the court may grant exemplary damages.

Damnum Sine Injuria

It means damage is not coupled which is not coupled with an unauthorised

1 A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 494

[15]
interference with the plaintiffs lawful right. Causing of damage, however
substantial, to another person is not actionable un law unless there is also a
violation of legal right of the plaintiff. This is generally so when the exercise of
legal right by one results in consequential harm to the other.
The mere fact that a man is injured by others act gives in itself no cause of
action; if the act is deliberate, the party injured will have no claim in law even
though the injury is intentional, so long as the other party is exercising its legal
right.1
In Gloucester Grammar School Case2 the defendant, a school master, 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 suffered by them.
In Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor Gow and Co.3 a number of steamships
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 defendants by lawful means had acted to
protect and extend their trade and increase their profits.
In Ushaben v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir,4 the plaintiffs sued for a
permanent injunction against the defendants to restrain them from exhibiting the
film names Jai Santoshi Maa. It was contended that 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 recognised as legal wrong. Moreover, no person
has 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 legal right, request of

1 Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills, (1935) All E.R. 209, 217; (1936) A.C. 85, 103,
per Lord Wright.

2 (1410) Y.B. Hill 11 hen, 4 of 47, p. 21, 36.

3 (1892) A.C. 25.

4 A.I.R. 1978 Guj. 13.

[16]
 injunction was rejected.
There are moral, religious, etc. wrongs for which law gives no remedy, though
they cause great loss or detriment. Loss or detriment is not a good ground of
action unless it is the result of a species of wrong which the law takes into
cognizance.

3. Legal Remedy

The law of torts is said to be a development of the maxim Ubi jus ibi remedium meaning
where there is right there is remedy. If a man has a right, he must necessarily have a means to
vindicate and maintain it and a remedy if he is injured in the exercise or enjoyment of it; and
indeed it is a vain thing to imagine a right without remedy; want of right and want of remedy
are reciprocal.

Therefore, if we try to explain torts mathematically, the following formula is deduced:

Wrongful Act + Legal Damage + Legal Remedy = Torts

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LIABILITY

There are two theories with regard to the basic principle of liability in the law of torts. They
are:

Wider and Narrower Theory: All injuries done by one person to another are torts unless
there is some justification recognized by law.

[17]
Pigeon Hole Theory: There are a definite number of torts outside which liability does not
exist in law of torts.

The first theory was propounded by Professor Winfield. According to this, if I injure my
neighbour, he can sue me in tort, whether the wrong happens to have a particular name like
assault, battery, deceit or slander, and I will be liable if I cannot prove lawful justification.
This leads to the wider principle that all unjustifiable harms are tortious. This enables the
courts to create new torts and make defendants liable irrespective of any defect in the
pleading of the plaintiff. This theory resembles the saying; my duty is to hurt nobody by word
or deed. This theory is supported by Pollock and courts have repeatedly extended the domain
of the law of torts. For example, negligence became a new specific tort only by the 19th
century AD. Similarly the rule of strict liability for the escape of noxious things from ones
premises was laid down in 1868 in the leading case if Rylands v. Fletcher1.

The second theory was proposed by Salmond. It resembles the Ten Commandments given to
Moses in the bible. According to this theory, I can injure my neighbour as much as I like
without fear of his suing me in tort provided my conduct does not fall under the rubric of
assault, deceit, slander or any other nominate tort.

The law of tort consists of a neat set of pigeon holes, each containing a labeled tort. If the
defendants wrong does not fit any of these pigeon holes he has not committed any tort. The
advocates of the first theory argue that decisions such as Donoghue v. Stevenson2 shows that
the law of tort is steadily expanding and that the idea of its being cribbed, cabined and
confined in a set of pigeon holes in untenable. However salmond argues in favour of his
theory that just as criminal law consists of a body of rules establishing specific offences, so
the law of torts consists of a body of rules establishing specific injuries. Neither in the one
case nor in the other is there any general principle of liability. Whether I am prosecuted for an
alleged offence or sued for an alleged tort it is for my adversary to prove that the case falls
within some specific and established rule of liability and not fro for me to defend myself by
proving that it is within some specific and established rule of justification or excuse. For
salmond the law must be called The Law of Torts rather that The Law of Tort.

1 (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330.

2 (1932) A.C. 562 : 147 L.T. 281 : 48 T.L.R. 494

[18]
There is, however, no recognition of either theory. It would seem more realistic for the
student to approach the tortious liability from a middle ground. In an Indian decision, Lala
Punnalal v. Kasthurich and Ramaji , it was pointed out that there is nothing like an
exhaustive classification of torts beyond which courts should not proceed, that new invasion
of rights devised by human ingenuity might give rise to new classes of torts. On the whole if
we are asked to express our preference between the two theories, in the light of recent
decisions of competent courts we will have to choose the first theory of liability that the
subsequent one. Thus it is a matter of interpretation of courts so as to select between the two
theories. The law of torts has in the main been developed by courts proceeding from the
simple problems of primitive society to those of our present complex civilization.

VARIOUS TYPES OF TORTS DUE TO WRONGFUL ACTS

TRESPASS

[19]
Trespass as a wrong has a very wide application. It could mean unlawful presence in
another's closure or land or premises, offence to the body of a person or even mean wrongful
taking of goods or chattels. To constitute the wrong of trespass, neither force nor unlawful
intention not actual damage nor breaking of an enclosure is necessary. Every invasion of
private property, be it ever so minor is a trespass. Trespass may take any of the following
three forms:

a) Trespass to land.

b) Trespass to person, and;

c) Trespass to goods.

TRESPASS TO LAND

Trespass to land may be committed by any of the following acts: -

a). Entering upon the land or property of the plaintiff

b). Continuing to remain in such land or property on expiry of license i.e. Permission to be in
it.

c). Doing an act affecting the sole possession of the plaintiff, in each case without
justification.

d) By throwing objects into anothers land.

e) By using the right of entry for purposes other than for which it was allowed.

Generally, trespass to land is a civil wrong. However it may give rise to criminal proceeding;
For example: Under the Trespass Act (Cap 294), a trespasser can be prosecuted for a criminal
offence if he enters on somebody's land with intent to steal goods or commit any other
offence. It is important to note that trespass to land is actionable per se, that is, without proof
of special damage. In other words, it is not a defence that no damage has been caused by the
trespass.

In the case of Graham v. Peat,1 the plaintiff was holding a land under a lease which was void
but he was nevertheless entitled to bring an action for trespass against the defendant who had

1 (1801) 1 East 244.

[20]
entered the land without lawful justification, because, any possession is a legal possession
against the wrongdoer.

Following are explanations to the elements of trespass:

1. Entry as an essence to constitute a trespass. A man is not liable for involuntary entry but
intentional entry, even though made under mistake. E.g. if in mowing in his own land a man
inadvertently allows his blade to cut through into his neighbours field, he is guilty of
trespass. Public streets including pavements etc. are primarily dedicated for public use for the
purpose of passage and cannot be used as though it is private residence. Thus an excess of
ordinary user of highway amount to trespass.

2. If a person who has lawfully entered on the land of another remains there, after his right of
entry has ceased he shall then be committing trespass.

3. Every interference with the land if another e.g. throwing stones over a neighbours land is
deemed to be constructive entry amounting to trespass, much as driving a nail into another
walls, planting trees on his land etc. These are actionable per-se whereas private nuisance is
actionable only with proof of damage. The owner of land is entitled to the column of air
space above the surface ad- infinitum for ordinary use and enjoyment, and anything down to
the centre of the earth. In principle, every continuance of a trespass is afresh trespass and an
action may be brought of it. An action may be brought for the original trespass in placing an
encumbrance on the land and another action for continuing the structure being so erected. It
therefore follows that a recovery of damage in the first action by way of accord and
satisfaction does not operated as purchase of the right to continue in the injury. Trespass by a
man's cattle, sheep, poultry etc. is dealt with similar to trespass committed by the owner
personally.

Remedies for Trespass to land.

1. Defence of property: He may have to use force till he gets possession but not unnecessary
amount of force of violence. This is called remedy of ejection.

2. Expulsion of trespasser especially in case of continued trespass.

3. Distress damage feasant: He may seize and retain them impounded as a pledge for the
redress of the injury sustained.

[21]
4. Damages: This means recovery of monetary compensation from the defendant.

5. Injunction: This may be obtained to ward off a threatened trespass or to prevent a

continuing trespass.

6. Action for recovery of Land: In case the plaintiff is wrongfully dispossessed of his land
he can sue for the recovery of the land from the defendant.

Defences against Trespass on land.

i. Statutory authority: Where the law allows entry upon land.

ii. Entry by license: Where entry is authorized by land owner, unless authority is abused.

iii. Adverse possession: Where land has been peacefully possessed for over 12 years without
disturbance.

iv. Act of Necessity: Example is entry to put off fire for public safety is justifiable.

v. By order of court of law: This may be in execution of court order e.g. by court brokers.

vi. Self-defence: a trespasser may be excused as having been done in self-defence or in the
defence of a persons goods, chattels or animals.

vii. Re-entry on land: A person wrongfully dispossessed of land may re-take possession of it
if its possible for him to do so peacefully and without the use of force. In this case, he will
not be liable for trespass to land.

viii. Re-taking of goods and chattels: if person unlawfully takes the goods and chattels of
another upon his own land, he impliedly licenses the owner of the goods to enter his land for
the purpose of reception.

TRESPASS TO PERSON

Any direct interference with the person (body) of another is actionable in the absence of any
lawful justification. Trespass to person includes assault, battery and false imprisonment.

Assault

Assault means conduct or threat to apply violence on the person of the plaintiff in
circumstances that may create apprehension that the latter is in real danger. It is committed

[22]
when a person threatens to use force against the person of another thus putting the other
person in fear of immediate danger. Examples: Shaking of fist, pointing a gun menacingly at
another, letting go a dog fiercely etc. It is important to note that not every threat amounts to
assault. There must be the means of carrying out the threat and the capacity to affect the
threat. The person threatened must be put in fear of immediate danger. An assault is a tort as
well as a crime. The intention as well as the act makes assault. Mere words do not amount to
assault unless it gives the users gesture such a meaning as may amount to assault.

In case of Stephens v. Myers,1 the plaintiff was the chairman at a Parish meeting, the
defendant also sat at the same table but there were six to seven persons between him and the
plaintiff. In the course of some angry discussion, the defendant had been vociferous and he
interrupted the proceedings of the meeting. A very large majority decided that the defendant
be expelled from the meeting. The defendant then advanced towards the Chairman with a
clenched fist saying that he would rather pull the chairman out of the chair than be turned out
of the room, but was stopped by the churchwarden, who sat next but one to the chairman. The
defendant was held liable for Assault.

Battery

Battery means the actual application (use) of force against the person of another without
lawful justification. It is immaterial whether the force is applied directly or indirectly to the
person. But there must be actual bodily contact between the plaintiff and the defendant.
Examples: - striking of another person or touching another person in a rude manner, pouring
water on or spitting on another person.

In case of Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar,2 it was held that fixing naked live wire,
without due warning, across the passage of a latrine to keep the trespassers away from the
latrine and thereby causing death of a trespasser was actionable.

Assault and battery are actionable per se (damage does not have to be proved).

False Imprisonment

1 (1830) 4 C. and P. 349 : 172 E.R. 735.

2 A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 205.

[23]
False imprisonment means total restraint or deprivation of the liberty of a person without
lawful justification. The duration of the time of detention is immaterial. False imprisonment
may be committed even without the plaintiff's knowledge e.g. by locking him up in his
bedroom while he is asleep and then reopening the door before he has awoken. In such a case
the plaintiff may still sue, Meering v. Graham-white Aviation Co. Ltd. It is not however
necessary that the persons body should be touched. A person is not only liable for false
imprisonment when he directly arrests or detains the plaintiff, but also when he actively
promotes or causes the arrest or detention of the person.

Defences to Assault, Battery & False Imprisonment

a). Volenti non-fit injuria: A person who has voluntarily consented to come into actual
bodily contact with another e.g. in sports, etc. cannot later complain against another person
who touches him in the course of playing the game.

b). Private defence: A person is within his legal rights to defence himself, his property or his
family. But he must use reasonable force in doing so.

c). Legal authority: A police officer has statutory authority to arrest a person in the
preservation of public peace. Here reasonable force may be used to affect such arrest.

d). Forceful entry: The rightful owner of property is entitled to use reasonable force to
prevent forcible entry on his land or to repossess his land or goods, which are wrongfully in
the possession of another.

e).Parental authority: People such as parents, teachers, etc. can inflict reasonable
punishment for the correction and benefit of the children. Thus a parent exercising parental
authority cannot chastise or even lock-up a child reasonably without being guilty of assault,
battery or false imprisonment, nor would a school-teacher.

TRESPASS TO GOODS

[24]
A person can sue for trespass to goods where there is wrongful interference with goods,
which are in his possession. Such interference includes wrongful conversion, actual taking of
or a direct and immediate injury to the goods. The tort of trespass to goods is meant to protect
personal property. To constitute the tort of trespass to goods, the plaintiff must show: -

1. That at the time of trespass, he had the possession of the goods.

2. That his possession had been wrongfully interfered with or disturbed.

In case of Krik v. Gregory,1 on As death his sister-in-law removed some jewellery from the
room where his dead body was lying, to another room under a reasonable but mistaken belief
that same was necessary for its safety. The jewellery was stolen from the place where it was
now kept. In an action by the executors of A, As sister-in-law was held liable for trespass to
the jewellery.

Trespass to goods is of three categories namely: -

1. Trespass to chattels.

2. Goods Detinue and;

3. Conversion.

Trespass to Chattels

It means interference with goods, which are in the actual or constructive possession of the
plaintiff. It may involve:

- Removal of goods from one place to another,

- Using the goods or;

- Destroying or damaging the goods wrongfully.

For an action to be sustainable:

- The trespass must be direct.

1 (1876) 1 Ex. D. 55

[25]
- The plaintiff must be in possession of the chattel at the time of the interference.

- The tort is actionable per-se.

Detinue

This means wrongful withholding or detention of goods from the person entitled to their
immediate possession. For example: If A lends his book to B and B refuses, to return it to A,
B is said to have committed the tort of Detinue.

Conversion

This means dealing with goods in a manner that is inconsistent with the right of the person in
possession of them. This tort protects a persons interest in dominion and control of goods.
The plaintiff must be in possession or have the right to immediate possession. For example: If
A intentionally sells B's goods to C without any authority from B, A is guilty of conversion.
Acts of conversion may be committed when property is wrongfully taken, parted with, sold,
retained, destroyed or the lawful owners right is denied. Defences to trespass to goods.
Limited defences are available to a defendant against a wrong to goods. The defendant,
however, can claim the right of lien. He may also claim other general defences like statutory
or judicial authority.

i. Recaption: The plaintiff can recapture his goods that have been wrongfully taken away
from him provided he uses reasonable force.

ii. Order for specific restitution: The court may also order for specific restitution of the
goods where damages is not adequate a remedy.

iii. Damages: The plaintiff is entitled to claim the full value of the goods and damages for
any inconvenience suffered by him.

[26]
 NEGLIGENCE

According to Judge Alderson, negligence means the breach of a duty caused by the omission
to do something, which a reasonable man would do, or doing of something, which a prudent
and reasonable man would not do. Negligence consists of neglect to use of ordinary care or
skill towards a person to whom the defendant owes the duty of observing ordinary care and
skill, by which neglect, the person has suffered injury to his person or property. The plaintiff
suing under tort of negligence must prove that:

1. The defendant owed him a duty of care,

The circumstances must be such that the defendant knew or reasonably ought to have known
that acting negligently would injure the plaintiff. A road user owes other users a legal duty of
care. An inviter owes his invitees a legal duty of care. A manufacturer of products owes a
legal duty of care to consumers. As a general rule, every person owes his neighbour a legal
duty of care.

The neighbour principle was enunciated by Lord Atkin in his dictum celebrated case of
Donohue v. Stevenson (1932), a man bought a bottle of ginger beer from a retail shop. The
man gave the bottle to his girlfriend who became ill after drinking the contents. The bottle
contained the decomposed remains of a snail. The bottle was opaque so that the substance
could not be discovered until the lady was refilling her glass. The consumer sued the
manufacturer for negligence. Lord Atkin in his ruling said the law that you are to love your
neighbour becomes in law that you must not injure your neighbourswho then is my
neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my
acts that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am
directing my mind to the acts or omission which are called in question.

In the Case of Dulieu v. White & Sons (1901), the plaintiff, a pregnant woman, was sitting
behind the counter of her husbands bar when suddenly a horse was driven into the bar.
Fearing her personal safety, she suffered nervous shock and gave birth to a premature baby. In
the circumstances, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover in negligence. The
standard of care expected of the defendant is that of a reasonable man. This is a man of
ordinary prudence. A reasonable person is an objective stand created by law for all
circumstances. Where professionals or experts are involved, the standard of care is that of a

[27]
reasonably competent expert in that field. There are some circumstances however where not
even a reasonable person could have foreseen the plaintiff suffering any loss, in which case,
there is no liability upon the person who has committed the injurious act.

In the landmark case of Bourhill v. Young (1943), the plaintiff (a pregnant woman) heard the
noise of a road accident some distance away and walked to the scene. On reaching there, she
suffered nervous shock and subsequently miscarried. In the circumstances, the Court held that
the plaintiff could not recover in negligence because the injury she suffered or the manner in
which it was caused which was not foreseeable. Had the plaintiff not walked to the scene of
the accident, she would not have suffered the injury complained of. Such injury was legally
termed as remote.

2. There has been a breach of that legal duty of care.

The plaintiff has to prove that there was a duty imposed by common law, statute or otherwise,
upon the defendant and that the defendant was in breach of this duty. However, at certain
times, negligence is presumed without proof of breach of duty by the plaintiff. This is in the
case of res-ipsa loquitor.

RES IPSA LOQUITOR

As a general rule, the burden of proving negligence lies with the plaintiff. He must prove that
the defendant owed him a duty of care, that the defendant has breached that duty and that he
has suffered damage. However, in certain cases, the plaintiff's burden of proof is relieved by
the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor. Where it is applicable Res ipsa Loquitor means that, thing
or facts speaks for themselves. This for example, occurs where an accident happens in
circumstances in which it ought not to have occurred, e.g. a car traveling on a straight road in
clear weather and good visibility suddenly swerves off the road and overturns, where a barrel
of flour suddenly drops from a warehouse, etc. Such an accident ought not to have occurred
except for the negligence of the defendant. Res ipsa loquitor is a rule of evidence and not of
law. It merely assists the plaintiff in proving negligence against the defendant. Before it can
be relied upon, three conditions must be satisfied, namely:

a) The thing inflicting the injury must have been under the control of the defendant or
someone whom he controls.

b) The event must be such that it could not have happened without negligence and;

[28]
c) There must be no evidence or explanation as to why or how the event occurred, as the
accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the
duty use proper care.

In the case of Bryne v. Boadle (1863), a barrel of flour fell from a warehouse o the defendant
onto the plaintiff injuring him in the street while he was passing through.

In the circumstances, the Court held that the plaintiff was not required to show how the
accident took place because on the facts, negligence could be presumed and the rule of res
ipsa loquitor applied. Effect of Res ipsa rule

1. It provides prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant.

2. It shifts the burden of proof form the plaintiff to the defendant.

3. The plaintiff has suffered injury to his person or property.

Plaintiff has to prove that if it were not of the defendants act he would not have suffered loss
or damage. There must be a traceable link between the act and the loss, otherwise it would be
considered remote and so, irrecoverable. If the plaintiff act is traceable to an independent
intervening act (Novus actus), the defendant is not liable.

3. Damage: For the plaintiff to succeed in claim of Negligence, he must prove that he
suffered harm, loss or prejudice, unless this is presumed as in the case of Injuria sine
damnum. No damage, no negligence.

Defences to Negligence

1. Contributory negligence: This defence is available to the defendant in circumstances in

which the plaintiff is also to blame for his suffering. The effect of this defence is to reduce the
amount recoverable by the plaintiff as damages by the extent of his contribution. Liability is
apportioned between the parties. In earlier law, a person who had contributed to his injury
due to his own negligence could not maintain an action in regard to such injury but this was
altered in Kenya by the Law Reform Act (Cap 26).This law now enables the plaintiff to
recover damages even in case of contributory negligence. However, the damages to be
recovered are to be reduced to such an extent by the court, taking into consideration that the
plaintiff contributed to his injury. Contributory negligence does not apply in case of children
and they can recover full damages even in case of their contributory negligence.

[29]
2. Volenti non fit injuria: This is the doctrine of voluntary assumption of risk.

3. Statutory authority: The defendant must prove in this defence that he acted in accordance
with the provisions of the Act.

DEFAMATION

Defamation means the publication of a false statement regarding another person without
lawful justification, which tends to lower his reputation in the estimation of right thinking
members of society or which causes him to be shunned or avoided or has a tendency to injure
him in his office, professions or trade. It has also been defined as the publication of a
statement that tends to injure the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt
or ridicule. In the case of Dixon v. Holden (1869) the right of reputation is recognized as an
inherent right of every person, which can be exercised against the entire world. A mans
reputation is therefore considered his property. Following are the essential elements of
defamation: -

i. False statement: The defendant must have made a false statement. If the statement is true,
it's not defamation.

ii. Defamatory statement: The statement must be defamatory. A statement is said to be

defamatory when it expose the plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule or shunning or injures
him in his profession or trade among the people known to him.

iii. Statement refers the plaintiff: The defamatory statement must refer to the plaintiff. But
the plaintiff need not have been specifically named. It is sufficient if right thinking members
of the society understand the statement to refer to the plaintiff.

iv. Statement must be Published: Publication of the statement consists in making known of
the defamatory matter to someone else (third parties) other than the plaintiff.

Where the defamatory statement is kept under lock and key and no one ever gets to read it,
there is no defamation.

[30]
TYPES OF DEFAMATION

1. Slander: Slander takes place where the defamatory statement are made in non-permanent
form e.g. by word of mouth, gestures, etc. Slander is actionable only on proof of damage.
However, in exceptional cases, a slanderous statement is actionable without proof of damage.
This is so in cases:

a) Where the statement inputs a criminal offence punished by imprisonment.

b) Where the statement inputs a contagious disease on the plaintiff.

c) Where the statement inputs unchastely on a woman.

d) Where the statement imputes incompetence on the plaintiff in his trade, occupation or
profession.

2. Libel: Libel takes place where the defamatory permanent form e.g. in writing, printing,
television broadcasting, effigy, etc. Where a defamatory matter is dictated to a secretary and
she subsequently transcribes it, the act of dictation constitutes a slander while the transcript is
a libel. An action for libel has the following essential requirements:

i) It must be proved that the statement is false,

ii) In writing,

iii) is defamatory, and

iv) Has been published.

Distinctions between slander and libel:

1. Libel can be a criminal offence as well as a civil wrong while slander amounts to a mere
civil wrong only.

2. Libel is in a permanent form while slander is in a non-permanent form.

3. Under libel, the wrong is actionable per se whereas in slander the plaintiff must prove
actual damage except when it conveys certain imputations.

4. Libel can be a criminal offence and may as well give rise to civil liability while slander is
essentially a civil wrong.

[31]
Defences against defamation

i. Truth or justification: Truth is a complete defines to an action on libel or slander. The

defendant must be sure of proving the truth of the statement otherwise more serious and
aggravated damage may be awarded against him.

ii. Fair comment: Fair comment on a matter of Public interest is a defines against
defamation. The word "fair" means honesty relevant and free from malice and improper
motive.

iii. Absolute Privilege: Certain matters are not actionable at all in defamation. They are
absolutely privileged. A matter is said to be privileged when the person who makes the
communication has a moral duty to make it to the person to whom he does make it, and the
person who received it has an interest in hearing it. They include statements made by the
judges or magistrates in the course of judicial proceedings, statements made in Parliament by
Legislators and communication between spouses, etc.

iv. Qualified Privilege: In this case a person is entitled to communicate a defamatory

statement so long as no malice is proved on his part. They include statements made by a
defendant while defending his reputation, communications made to a person in public
position for public good, etc.

v. Apology or offer of Amends: The defendant is at liberty to offer to make a suitable

correction of the offending statement coupled with an apology. Such offers maybe relied
upon as a defines.

The defendant can make an offer of amends where the publication was without malice and it
was published innocently.

vi. Consent: In case whereby the plaintiff impliedly consents to the publication complained
of, such consent is a defence in defamation.

Remedies for defamation Damages:

The plaintiff can recover damages for injury to his reputation as well as his feelings.

Apology: An apology is another remedy available to the plaintiff. This is because it has the
effect of correcting the impression previously made by the offending statement about the
plaintiff.

[32]
Injunctions: The Court may grant injunction restraining the publication of a libel. But the
plaintiff must first prove that the defamatory statement is untrue and its publication will cause
irreparable damage to him.

NUISANCE

This is the lawful interference with a persons use or enjoyment of land or some other rights
over or in connection with land. It entails the doing or an unjustifiable thing, which interferes
with the use or enjoyment of anothers land. This tort protects a persons enjoyment of land or
rights vested in the land. Nuisance may be public or private.

Public Nuisance

This is an act, which interferes with the enjoyment of a right of members or a society in
general e.g. right of fresh air, noise free environment, use of public highway, waterway, etc.
Public nuisance is criminal offence actionable by the state on behalf of the public. However,
an individual may sue for public nuisance only if he may prove that he has suffered particular
damage or loss over and above what other members of the public have suffered. Such injury
caused must be direct and not mere consequential injury. It must also be shown to be of a
substantial character in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Public nuisance is therefore a
tort as well as crime. These suits are dealt with by or in the name of the state.

Private Nuisance

This is the unlawful interference with a persons use of land or right connected with the land.
It affects a person in his individual capacity and hence a personal action for redress is
necessary. It may take the form of noise, heat, smoke, vibrations, overhanging branches,
playing loud music etc. Private nuisance is not actionable if the action of the defendant is
reasonable in the legitimate use of his property. The defendant would also not be liable if the
plaintiff is over sensitive. The standard or test applied by courts is that of a reasonable man.
The defendant cannot escape liability by pleading that the plaintiff came to the source of the
nuisance. The defendant cannot escape liability by pleading that the plaintiff came to the
source of the nuisance.

[33]
Relief / Remedies to tort of nuisance.

1. Damages: The tort of nuisance is not actionable per-se. The plaintiff must prove loss or
damage unless the same can be presumed.

2. Injunction: The plaintiff may apply for an order to restrain the defendant from continuing
with the tortuous acts and the court may grant the order if circumstances so demand.

3. Abatement: This is the discontinuation of the nuisance e.g. cutting overhanging branches
or roots.

A person may only sue for nuisance if he has an interest in the land affected. A guest whose
enjoyment of land is interfered with has no action in nuisance unless he is vested with the
management and control of the source of nuisance.

Defences to the tort of nuisance

1. Prescription: Right to commit private nuisance may be acquired by continuation of the

nuisance for 20 years or more. The tortfeasor acquires prescriptive rights if he proves that he
has committed the alleged nuisance for such period of 20 years without any interference.

2. Statutory authority: This is the offending act has been enabled by an Act of parliament.

3. Plaintiffs consent: This is the defence of Volenti non fit injuria i.e. that the plaintiff
willingly consented to the nuisance with full knowledge of its character.

[34]
 CONCLUSION AND SUGGESSTION

As we say Law of tort is concerned with the allocation and distribution of losses to the
injured party so for this purpose commitment of wrongful act or omission is the first step in
constituting the tort. There are many acts which though harmful are not wrongful and give no
right of action to him who suffers from their effects. Damage without breach of a legal right
will not constitute a tort. On the other hand if there is an infringement of a legal private right
without any actual loss or damage in such a case the person whose right has been infringed
has a good cause of action. Every act which is wrongful (in the eyes of law) calls for an un
liquidated damages, amount of which is further asserted by court accordingly. The claim
differs from person to person and from act to act for e.g. if a person abuses a person like any
person from general public and if a person abuses the President of our country then in both
the cases the amount of damages will be different as no doubt both the acts are wrongful acts
but both the persons cannot be compare equally.

So wrongful act resulting in legal damage and legal remedy is the fundamental and principle
requirement in constituting the tort without which no question of claim arises.

Wrongful act is a very wide term in tort. Effort should be made that every time the act or
omission should be interpreted so properly, effectively and efficiently so that the injured party
could be satisfied to the fullest and therefore there is no chance of complaints from both the
parties. Now in this era of complex society there are numerous wrongful acts which are being
committed in our day today life but some acts are of such natures which are committed only
because the fear of committing that act is very less due to the fewer amounts of un-liquidated
damages for the same. So the interpreters should consider this thing in account. There is also
lack of awareness in India; the acts which should be resolve under law of tort are being
prosecuted under CrPc. So steps should be taken to enlighten this area also.

[35]
 BIBLIOGARPHY

TORTS: THE FAILINGS OF THE

MISFEASANCE/NONFEASANCE DISTINCTION AND THE
SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP REQUIREMENT IN THE
CRIMINAL ACTS OF THIRD PERSONSSTATE V. BACK by
Brian D. Bender.
Books The law lexicon by Dr. Shakil Ahmad Khan
The law of torts by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal
The law of torts by R.k. Bangia.
Legal methods by G.P. Tripathi
Legal research methodology by Rattan Singh

Consumer Protection Act, 1986;

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988;
the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and
the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1992.
statutes section 9 of The Code of Civil Procedure.
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act, 1945.
: Indian Contract Act, 1872 .
Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Websit http://www.lawnotes.in/Law_of_Torts#ixzz3obGag274.
es http://www.lawnotes.in/Law_of_Torts#ixzz3obHYu7vh.
http://www.lawnotes.in/Law_of_Torts#ixzz3obIlGFAn.
http://www.lawnotes.in/Law_of_Torts#ixzz3obI6XAA1.
http://www.lawnotes.in/Law_of_Torts#ixzz3odEtIaQg.
http://www.lawnotes.in/Law_of_Torts_in_India#ixzz3odcNf4Vq.
http://web.wmitchell.edu/law-review/wp-
content/uploads/Volume37/documents/Bender.2.pdf.
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/malfeasance-
misfeasance-and-nonfeasance-in-tort-law-1266-1.html.
https://intellectualselfdefence.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/malfeasa
nce-misfeasance-and-nonfeasance/.
www.slideshare.net.
http://notes-law.blogspot.in/2008/08/law-on-torts-part-1.html.

[36]
 http://www.slideshare.net/Rajavenkatesan15121982/law-of-
tortsupdated06082015.
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/torts_s.htm.
http://www.lawnotes.in/Law_of_Torts_in_India.
http://notes-law.blogspot.in/2008/08/law-on-torts-part-1.html
http://slideplayer.com/slide/3296743/.
http://www.slideshare.net/ajeshktk/laws-torts.
http://www.lawnotes.in/Law_of_Torts.
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/torts_s.htm.

CITATIONS

1. Glasgow Corporation v. Taylor

2. Roger v. Rajendro Dutt
3. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwati
4. General Cleaning Corporation Ltd. v. Christmas
5. Dhadphale v. Gurav
6. Ashby v. White
7. Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
8. Gloucester Grammar School Case
9. Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor Gow & Co.
10. Ushaben v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir
11. Rylands v. Fletcher
12. Donoghue v. Stevenson
13. Lale Punnalal v. Kasturich & Ramaji
[37]
14. Graham v. Peat
15. Stephens v. Myers
16. Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar
17. Meering v. Graham White Aviation Co.
18. Krik v. Gregory
19. Dulieu v. White and Sons
20. Bourhill v. Young
21. Bryne v. Boadle
22. Dixon v. Hondle

[38]