Constituents of Tort

The law of torts is fashioned as an instrument for making people adhere to the standards of reasonable

behaviour and respect the rights and interests of one another. This it does by protecting interests and by

providing for situations when a person whose protected interest is violated can recover compensation for the loss

suffered by him from the person who has violated the same. By interest here is meant a claim, want or desire of a

human being or group of human beings seeks to satisfy, and of which, therefore the ordering of human relations

in civilized society must take account. It is however, obvious that every want or desire of a person cannot be

protected nor can a person claim that whenever he suffers loss he should be compensated by the person who is

the author of the loss. The law, therefore, determines what interests need protection and it also holds the balance

when there is a conflict of protected interests.

Every wrongful act is not a tort. To constitute a tort,

# There must be a wrongful act committed by a person;

# The wrongful act must be of such a nature as to give rise to a legal remedy and

# Such legal remedy must be in the form of an action for unliquidated damages.

I. Wrongful Act

An act which prima facie looks innocent may becomes tortious, if it invades the legal right of another person. In

Rogers v. Ranjendro Dutt , the court held that, the act complained of should, under the circumstances, be legally

wrongful, as regards the party complaining. That is, it must prejudicially affect him in some legal right; merely that

it will however directly, do him harm in his interest is not enough.

A legal right, as defined by Austin, is a faculty which resides in a determinate party or parties by virtue of a given

law, and which avails against a party (or parties or answers to a duty lying on a party or parties) other than the

party or parties in whom it resides. Rights available against the world at large are very numerous. They may be

divided again into public rights and private rights. To every right, corresponds a legal duty or obligation. This

obligation consists in performing some act or refraining from performing an act.

Liability for tort arises, therefore when the wrongful act complained of amounts either to an infringement of a legal

private right or a breach or violation of a legal duty.

II. Damage

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.

Damages are claimed and awarded by the court to the parties. 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.

The real significance of a legal damage is illustrated by two maxims, namely, Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria

Sine Damno.

(i) Damnum Sine Injuria (Damage Without Injury)

There are many acts which though harmful are not wrongful and give no right of action to him who suffers from

their effects. Damage so done and suffered is called Damnum Sine Injuria or damage without injury. Damage

without breach of a legal right will not constitute a tort. They are instances of damage suffered from justifiable

acts. An act or omission committed with lawful justification or excuse will not be a cause of action though it

results in harm to another as a combination in furtherance of trade interest or lawful user of one’s own premises.

In Gloucester Grammar School Master Case , it had been held that the plaintiff school master had no right to

complain of the opening of a new school. The damage suffered was mere damnum absque injuria or damage

without injury. Acton v. Blundell, in which a mill owner drained off underground water running into the plaintiff’s

well, fully illustrate that no action lies fro mere damage, however substantial, caused without the violation of some

right.

There are moral wrongs for which the law gives no remedy, though they cause great loss or detriment. Los or

detriment is not a good ground of action unless it is the result of a species of wrong of which the law takes no

cognizance.

(ii) Injuria Sine Damno ( injury without damage)

Partial preview of the text

Download Understanding Torts: Wrongful Acts, Damages, and Legal Rights and more Study notes Law of Torts in PDF only on Docsity!

Constituents of Tort

The law of torts is fashioned as an instrument for making people adhere to the standards of reasonable behaviour and respect the rights and interests of one another. This it does by protecting interests and by providing for situations when a person whose protected interest is violated can recover compensation for the loss suffered by him from the person who has violated the same. By interest here is meant a claim, want or desire of a human being or group of human beings seeks to satisfy, and of which, therefore the ordering of human relations in civilized society must take account. It is however, obvious that every want or desire of a person cannot be protected nor can a person claim that whenever he suffers loss he should be compensated by the person who is the author of the loss. The law, therefore, determines what interests need protection and it also holds the balance when there is a conflict of protected interests. Every wrongful act is not a tort. To constitute a tort,

There must be a wrongful act committed by a person;

The wrongful act must be of such a nature as to give rise to a legal remedy and

Such legal remedy must be in the form of an action for unliquidated damages.

I. Wrongful Act An act which prima facie looks innocent may becomes tortious, if it invades the legal right of another person. In Rogers v. Ranjendro Dutt , the court held that, the act complained of should, under the circumstances, be legally wrongful, as regards the party complaining. That is, it must prejudicially affect him in some legal right; merely that it will however directly, do him harm in his interest is not enough. A legal right, as defined by Austin, is a faculty which resides in a determinate party or parties by virtue of a given law, and which avails against a party (or parties or answers to a duty lying on a party or parties) other than the party or parties in whom it resides. Rights available against the world at large are very numerous. They may be divided again into public rights and private rights. To every right, corresponds a legal duty or obligation. This obligation consists in performing some act or refraining from performing an act. Liability for tort arises, therefore when the wrongful act complained of amounts either to an infringement of a legal private right or a breach or violation of a legal duty. II. Damage 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. Damages are claimed and awarded by the court to the parties. 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. The real significance of a legal damage is illustrated by two maxims, namely, Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria Sine Damno. (i) Damnum Sine Injuria (Damage Without Injury) There are many acts which though harmful are not wrongful and give no right of action to him who suffers from their effects. Damage so done and suffered is called Damnum Sine Injuria or damage without injury. Damage without breach of a legal right will not constitute a tort. They are instances of damage suffered from justifiable acts. An act or omission committed with lawful justification or excuse will not be a cause of action though it results in harm to another as a combination in furtherance of trade interest or lawful user of one’s own premises. In Gloucester Grammar School Master Case , it had been held that the plaintiff school master had no right to complain of the opening of a new school. The damage suffered was mere damnum absque injuria or damage without injury. Acton v. Blundell , in which a mill owner drained off underground water running into the plaintiff’s well, fully illustrate that no action lies fro mere damage, however substantial, caused without the violation of some right. There are moral wrongs for which the law gives no remedy, though they cause great loss or detriment. Los or detriment is not a good ground of action unless it is the result of a species of wrong of which the law takes no cognizance. (ii) Injuria Sine Damno ( injury without damage)

This means 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. It is not necessary for him to prove any special damage because every injury imports a damage when a man in hindered of his right. Every person has an absolute right to property, to the immunity of his person, and to his liberty, and an infringement of this right is actionable per se. actual perceptible damage is not, therefore, essential as the foundation of an action. It is sufficient to show the violation of a right in which case the law will presume damage. Thus in cases of assault, battery, false imprisonment, libel, trespass on land, etc., the mere wrongful act is actionable without proof of special damage. The court is bound to award to the plaintiff at least nominal damages if no actual damage is proved. This principle was firmly established by the election case of Ashby v. White, in which the plaintiff was wrongfully prevented from exercising his vote by the defendants, returning officers in parliamentary election. The candidate fro whom the plaintiff wanted to give his vote had come out successful in the election. Still the plaintiff brought an action claiming damages against the defendants for maliciously preventing him from exercising his statutory right of voting in that election. The plaintiff was allowed damages by Lord Holt saying that there was the infringement of a legal right vested in the plaintiff. III. Remedy The law of torts is said to be a development of the maxim ‘ubi jus ibi remedium’ or ‘there is no wrong without a remedy’. If a man has a right, he must of necessity 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. Where there is no legal remedy there is no wrong. But even so the absence of a remedy is evidence but is not conclusive that no right exists. Some General Conditions In Torts

1. Act And Omission- To constitute a tort there must be a wrongful act, whether of omission or commission, but not such acts as are beyond human control and as are entertained only in thoughts. An omission is generally not actionable but it is so exceptionally. Where there is a duty to act an omission may create liability. A failure to rescue a drowning child is not actionable, but it is so where the child is one’s own. A person who voluntarily commences rescue cannot leave it half the way. A person may be under duty to control natural happenings to his own land so as to prevent them from encroaching others’ land. 2. Voluntary and Involuntary Acts- a voluntary act has to be distinguished from an involuntary act because the former may involve liability and the latter may not. A self willed act like an encroachment fro business, is voluntary, but an encroachment for survival may be involuntary. The wrongfulness of the act and the liability for it depends upon legal appreciation of the surrounding circumstances. 3. Malice- malice is not essential to the maintenance of an action for tort. It is of two kinds, ‘express malice’ (or malice in fact or actual malice) and ‘malice in law’ (or implied malice). The first is what is called malice in common acceptance and means ill will against a person; the second means a wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse. Where a man has a right to do an act, it is not possible to make his exercise of such right actionable by alleging or proving that his motive in the exercise was spite or malice in the popular sense. An act, not otherwise unlawful, cannot generally be made actionable by an averment that it was done with evil motive. A malicious motive per se does not amount to injuria or legal wrong. Wrongful acts of which malice is an essential element are:

Defamation,

Malicious prosecution,

Willful and malicious damage to property,

Maintenance, and

Slander of title.

4. Intention, motive, negligence and recklessness- The obligation to make reparation for damage caused by a wrongful act arises from the fault and not from the intention. Any invasion of the civil rights of another person is in itself a legal wrong, carrying with it liability to repair it necessary or natural consequences, in so far as these are injurious to the person whose right is infringed, whether the motive which prompted it be good, bad or indifferent. A thing which is not a legal injury or wrong is not made actionable by being done with a bad intent. It is no defence to an action in tort for the wrong doer to plead that he did not intend to cause damage, if damage has resulted owing to an act or omission on his part which is actively or passively the effect of his volition. A want of knowledge of the illegality of his act or omission affords no excuse, except where fraud or malice is the essence

Understanding Torts: Wrongful Acts, Damages, and Legal Rights, Study notes of Law of Torts

Related documents

Partial preview of the text

Download Understanding Torts: Wrongful Acts, Damages, and Legal Rights and more Study notes Law of Torts in PDF only on Docsity!

Constituents of Tort

There must be a wrongful act committed by a person;

The wrongful act must be of such a nature as to give rise to a legal remedy and

Such legal remedy must be in the form of an action for unliquidated damages.

Defamation,

Malicious prosecution,

Willful and malicious damage to property,

Maintenance, and

Slander of title.