Law and order in this country are the only ones

Law and Justice Minister in the United Kingdom

1. CONSTITUENTS OF
TORT

2. 1. Wrongful Act (Actus Reus):
A violation of a legal duty or a wrongful omission on the
part of the defendant.
Must be a violation of a private civil right, not a purely
public wrong (crime).
2. Legal Damage (Injuria):
The act must result in legal injury or violation of a legal
right of the plaintiff.
Actual monetary loss is not always necessary (e.g.,
trespass).
3. Legal Remedy (Jus):
• The wrongful act must be one for which the law provides a
remedy (e.g., damages or injunction). Liability

3. Injuria Sine Damno (Injury without
Damage)
Meaning: Violation of a legal right
without any actual loss or harm
suffered by the plaintiff.
Principle: The mere infringement of
a legal right is actionable per se (by
itself).
Example: A voter being wrongfully
prevented from voting (violation of
the legal right to vote), even if the
candidate they supported still wins. Denmum sine
injuria Damnum Sine Injuria (Damage without
Legal
Injury)
Meaning: Actual loss or harm suffered,
but without the violation of any legal
right.
Principle: Damage that does not arise
from the breach of a legal right is not
actionable in the law of torts.
Example: A new competing school
opening near an existing one, causing
the first school owner to lose business.
(No legal right to be free from
competition was violated). Injuriea sine
demnum

4. Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium (Where there is a right, there is a remedy)
Meaning: A fundamental principle that states if a person has a
legal right, the law must provide a means to protect and enforce
that right.
Scope: It is a broad principle of justice, but it is not absolute in
Torts; the right must be recognized by law and the remedy must
be appropriate.
Relation to Maxims: It confirms that where Injuria (legal injury)
occurs, a remedy (Remedium) will follow.

5. Negligence in Tort Law Negligence is the failure to exercise reasonable care, resulting in damage or injury to another. 1. Subjective Theory - Negligence depends on what the defendant actually foresaw.
2. Objective Theory - Negligence is judged by the standard of a "reasonable man of ordinary
prudence."
3. Mixed Theory - Both subjective foresight and objective standards are considered. MeaningTheories of Negligence Essential Ingredients of
Negligence 1. Duty of Care - The defendant owed a legal duty to the plaintiff.
• Example: A doctor owes a duty to his patient.
2. Breach of Duty - The defendant failed to meet the required standard of care.
• Judged by the "reasonable man" test.
3. Consequent Damage - The plaintiff suffered actual harm or injury as a result. Proof of Negligence The plaintiff generally has to prove negligence, but sometimes negligence is presumed under the rule:
Res Ipsa Loquitur (the thing speaks for itself)
Applied when the accident itself implies negligence (e.g., leaving surgical instruments inside a patient after surgery).

6. Medical negligence Manufacturing
Negligence 1. Definition:
2. Manufacturing negligence refers to
carelessness or lack of proper quality control
in the production process that leads to a
defective product.
3. Example:
If a car manufacturer fails to install brakes
properly, and the defect causes an
accident, it is a case of manufacturing
negligence.
A medicine company producing tablets
with wrong chemical composition due to
negligence in the production process.
4. Definition:
Medical negligence occurs when a
healthcare provider fails to act with the
skill, care, and caution that a reasonably
competent medical professional would
exercise under similar circumstances. Examples:
Performing surgery on the wrong
body part.
Giving the wrong medicine or
incorrect dosage.
Failure to diagnose a disease
properly.
Leaving surgical instruments inside a
patient’s body after surgery.

7. Case: Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) Facts:
• Mrs. Donoghue went to a café in Paisley, Scotland with a friend.
ter friend bought her a bottle of ginger beer
manufactured by Mr. Stevenson.
The bottle was opaque, so the contents couldn't be seen.
After drinking some, she poured the rest into a glass and discovered a decomposed snail in it.
She suffered from shock and gastroenteritis.
Since she hadn't bought the bottle herself, she could not sue under contract law. She filed a case in tort law for negligence. Issue:
• Whether a manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer, even when there is no contract
between them. Judgment:
The House of Lords held in favor of Mrs.
Donoghue.
Lord Atkin's "Neighbour Principle":
You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to
injure your neighbour.
Neighbour = persons who are closely and directly affected by your act and whom you ought reasonably to have in
contemplation. principle:manufacturing negligence

8. Case: Municipal Corporation of Delhi
v. Subhagwanti (AIR 1966 SC 1750) Facts:
A clock tower situated in Chandni Chowk, Delhi, owned and maintained by the Municipal Corporation, collapsed
suddenly.
The collapse killed several people, including the husband of Subhagwanti (the plaintiff).
The tower was over 80 years old and had not been properly inspected or maintained. Issue:
• Whether the Municipal Corporation was liable for the deaths caused by the collapse of the clock tower. Judgment (Supreme Court of India):
The Corporation was held liable.
The Court applied the principle of strict liability and negligence in maintenance.
The owner of a structure which is open to the public has a duty to ensure proper care and maintenance. Principle Established:
Duty of Care by Public Authorities - Municipal authorities have a duty to maintain public structures in a safe condition.
Negligence - Failure to maintain and inspect a dangerous structure amounts to negligence.
Even if collapse was sudden, foreseeability of risk makes them liable.
v Importance:
• This case is a leading …..dian authority on

9. Case: Pinnamaneni Narasimha Rao v.
Gundavarapu Jayaprakasu Facts:
The case dealt with medical negligence.
The defendant, a medical practitioner, performed treatment/surgery on the plaintiff's family member.
Due to lack of proper care and failure to follow standard medical practices, the patient suffered serious harm.
The plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of the doctor and sought damages. Issue:
• Whether the doctor failed to exercise the reasonable standard of care expected from a medical professional. Judgment:
The Court held the doctor liable for medical negligence.
Doctors are expected to exercise a reasonable degree of skill and care while treating patients.
Any deviation causing injury, which a competent doctor would have avoided, amounts to negligence. Principle:medical negligence

10. CASE: JACOB MATHEW V. STATE OF PUNJAB
(2005) 6 SCC 1 Facts:
A patient admitted to a hospital complained of breathing difficulty.
The attending doctors, including Dr. Jacob Mathew, could not provide timely oxygen supply as the oxygen
cylinder in the hospital was empty and no functional backup was available.
The patient died, and a criminal complaint for negligence causing death was filed against the doctors. Issue:
Whether doctors can be held criminally liable for negligence under Section 304A IPC (causing death by
negligence).
What standard of care applies to medical professionals in India. Judgment (Supreme Court of India):
Doctors are not liable for criminal negligence unless negligence is gross or of a very high degree.
Mere error of judgment or accident is not negligence.
For civil liability (compensation), simple negligence is enough.
For criminal liability, it must be proved that the act was so negligent that it showed recklessness or indifference to life. Principle Established:
1. Bolam Test Adopted in India - A doctor is not negligent if he acts in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of
medical professionals.
2. Civil vs. Criminal Negligence -
Civil liability: Simple negligence (compensation).
Criminal liability: Gross negligence or recklessness.
3. Protection to Doctors - Doctors should not be harassed by frivolous complaints; expert medical opinion is required before proceeding against
them.

11. THANK YOU
FOR LISTEN