Law of torts notes

notes

1. Law of Torts – UNIT I: Revision Notes for LL.B – First Year
Introduction to the Law of Torts
The word tort is of French origin and is equivalent of the English word wrong. It is derived from the Latin
word tortum, which means twisted or crooked. It implies conduct that is twisted or crooked. Tort is commonly used to
mean a breach of duty amounting to a civil wrong.
Salmond defines tort as a civil wrong for which the remedy is a
common law action for unliquidated damages and which is not exclusively the
breach of a contract or the breach of a trust or other merely equitable
obligation.
A tort arises due to a person’s duty to others which is created by one law or the other. A person who commits a tort is
known as a tortfeaser, or a wrongdoer. Where they are more than one, they are called joint tortfeaser. Their
wrongdoing is called tortuous act and they are liable to be sued jointly and severally.
The principle aim of the Law of tort is compensation for victims or their
dependants. Grants of exemplary damages in certain cases will show that
deterrence of wrong doers is also another aim of the law of tort.
Evolution of Law of Torts in India
The law of torts in India is mainly the English law of torts which is based on the principles of the ‘common law’. This
was made suitable to the Indian conditions in accordance with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience.
However, the application of tort laws in India is not a very regular event and one can even go to the extent of
commenting that tort as a law in India is far from being looked upon as a major branch of law and litigation. In the
Indian legal system, the concept of ‘punishment’ occupies a more prominent place than ‘compensation’ for wrongs.
It has been argued that the development of law of tort in India need not be on the same lines as in England.
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, Justice Bhagwati said, “we have to evolve new principles and lay down new norms
which will adequately deal with new problems which arise in a highly industrialized economy. We cannot allow our
judicial thinking to be constructed by reference to the law as it prevails in England or for the matter of that in any
foreign country. We are certainly prepared to receive light from whatever source it comes but we have to build our
own jurisprudence.”
Objectives of Law of Torts
 to determine the rights between parties to dispute
 to protect certain rights recognized by law
 to prevent the continuation or repetition of a harm
 to restore the property to its rightful owner
Scope of Tort
Tort & Contract
1. In a contract, the parties fix the duties themselves whereas in torts, the law fixes the duty.

2. 2. A contract stipulates that only the parties to the contract can sue and be sued on it (privity of contract) while in
tort, privity is not needed in order to sue or be sued.
3. In the case of contract, the duty is owed to a definite person(s) while in tort, the duty is owed to the community at
large i.e. duty in- rem.
4. In contract remedy may be in the form of liquidated or unliquidated damages whereas in tort, remedies are
always unliquidated.
Tort & Crime
1. In tort, the action is brought in the court by the injured party to obtain compensation whereas in crime,
proceedings are conducted by the state.
2. The aim of litigation in torts is to compensate the injured party while in crime; the offender is punished by the
state in the interest of the society.
3. A tort is an infringement of the civil rights belonging to individuals while a crime is a breach of public rights and
duties, which affect the whole community.
4. Parties involved in criminal cases are the Prosecution verses the Accused person while in Torts, the parties are
the Plaintiff versus the Defendant.
Constituents of Tort
The law of tort is an instrument to enforce reasonable behavior 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.
2. The wrongful act or omission must give rise to legal damage or actual damage 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.
01. Wrongful Act
An act or omission that prejudicially affect one’s legal right. Such legally violative wrongful act is called as actus
reus. Thus, liability for a tort arises when the wrongful act amounts to either an infringement of a legal private right or
a breach.
An act, which at first, appears to be innocent may become tortuous if it invades the legal right of another person e.g.
the erection in one’s own land which obstructs light to a neighbors’ house. Liability for a tort arises when the wrongful
act amounts to an infringement of a legal right or a breach.
02. Damage
The sum of money awarded by court to compensate damage is called damages. Damage means the loss or harm
caused or presumed to be suffered by a person as a result of some wrongful act of another. Legal damage is not the
same as actual damage.

3. The real significance of legal damage is illustrated by two maxims namely:
Injuria sine damno and Damnum sine injuria
Injuria sine damno (Injury without damage)
It means violating 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 the proof of some damage caused by an act. For successful actions
the only thing which has to be proved is that the plaintiff’s legal right has been violated, i.e. there is injuria.
Case Law: Refusal to register a voter was held as and injury per-se even when the favorite candidate won the
election – Ashby Vs. White (1703). This rule is based on the old maxim of law, Ubi jus ibi remedium, which means
that where there is a right, there is a remedy.
Damnum sine injuria (Damage without injury)
It means “There may be an injury inflicted without any act of injustice.” There is another term like it that is “damnum
absque injuria“, which means damage or harm without an injury in the legal sense. In other words a loss or injury to
someone which does not give that person a right to sue the person causing the loss.
Case Laws:
In the case of Mayor & Bradford Corporation Vs. Pickles (1895), Pickles was annoyed by the refusal of Bradford
Corporation to purchase his land for their water undertaking. Out of spite, he sank a shaft on his land, which had the
effect of discoloring and diminishing the water of the Corporation, which percolated through his land. The House of
Lords held that the action of Pickles was lawful and no matter how ill his motive might be he had a right to act on his
land in any manner that so pleases him.
In the case of Mogul Steamship Co. Vs. Me-Gregory (1892). Certain ship owners combined together. In order to
drive a ship-owner out of trade by offering cheap freight charges to customers who would deal with them. The plaintiff
who was driven out of business sued the ship-owner, for loss caused to him by their act. The court held that a trader
who is ruined by legitimate competition of his rivals could not get damages in tort.
03. Remedy – Development of Ubi jus ibi Remedium
The law of torts is said to be a development of the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium (there is no wrong without a
remedy). Whenever the common law gives a right or prohibits an injury, it also gives a remedy. It is an elementary
maxim of equity jurisprudence that there is no wrong without a remedy.
The maxim means only that legal wrong and legal remedy are correlative terms.
A tort is a civil injury, but all civil injuries are not torts. The wrongful act must come under the category of wrongs for
which the remedy is a civil action for damages. The essential remedy for a tort is an action for damages, but there are
other remedies also e.g., injunction, restitution, etc.
Case Law:
In the case of Abbot v. Sullivan, the court held that there is a right to receive a time-barred debt but there is no
remedy to recover it.

4. Foundations of Tortious Liability
Tortious liability arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by the law: such duty is towards persons generally
and its breach is compensated by an action for unliquidated damages.
• Theory 1: By Winfield – Law of Tort – General Liability: all injuries done to another person are torts, unless there
be some justification recognized by the law
• Theory 2: By Salmonds – Pigeon Theory – Law of Torts: there is a definite number of torts (assault, battery,
defamation) outside which liability in tort does not exist
Case Law:
Rougher, J., described in the case of John Munroe (Acrylics) Ltd. v. London Fire and Civil Defence Authority, “It
is truism to say that we live in the age of compensation. There seems to be a growing belief that every misforture
must, in pecuniary terms at any rate, be laid at someone else’s door, and after every mishap, the cupped palms are
outstretched for the solace of monetary compensation.”
General Elements of Torts
Act & Omission
To constitute a tort, there must be a wrongful act. The word “act” is used to include both positive and negative acts
i.e., acts and omissions. Wrongful acts which make a person liable in tort are positive acts and sometimes omissions.
They must be distinguished from natural calamities, and even from mere thoughts and intentions.
Failure to do something in doing an act is a bad way of performing the act. For example, if a lawyer gives an opinion
without taking notice of the change in law brought about by a reported decision of the Supreme Court, he would not
be guilty of an omission but of performing the act of giving his opinion in a bad way.
Where as an omission is failure to do an act as a whole. Generally, the law does not impose liability for mere
omissions. An omission incures liability when there is a duty to act. For example, a person cannot be held responsible
for the omission of not rescuing a stranger child whom he sees drowning even though he can rescue him without any
appreciable exertion or risk of harm to himself. But the result would be different if a parent or guardian is failed to
attempt to rescue the child. In that case, it would be an omission as there is a duty to act.
Voluntary Acts & Involuntary Acts
A voluntary act may be distinguished from an involuntary act as only voluntary acts have liability. Voluntary act can be
understand based on its willed mascular contraction, its circumstances and its consequences. For example, an act of
murdering a person by shooting at him is one act and not merely the muscular contraction of pressing the trigger.
An involuntary act does not give rise to any liability. For example, an involuntary act of trespass is not a tort.
Omissions like positive acts may also be voluntary or involuntary.
In the case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, the Supreme Court held that the encroachments
committed by those persons are involuntary acts in the sense that those acts are compelled by inevitable
circumstances and are not guided by choice.
Mental elements

5. A voluntary act can be held in strict liability if there’s a presence of required mental element i.e., malice, intention,
negligence or motive in addition to the other necessary ingredients of the torts are present.
o Malice in Law and in Fact
Malice means spite or ill-will. However, in law malice has two distinct meanings such as: 1. Intentional doing of a
wrongful act and 2. Improper motive. In the first sense, malice is synonymous with intention and in the second sense,
malice refers to any motive which the law disapproves.
Malice with an intention of wrongful act is called as Malice in Law. It is also called as implied malice. In a legal
sense, malice means a wrongful act, done intentionally, without just cause or excuse. For example, if a person give a
perfect stranger a blow likely to produce death, the person do it out of malice because, he do it intentionally and
without just cause or excuse.
Malice with an improper motive is called as Malice in fact. It is also called as express malice. Malice in fact is liable
for malicious prosecution.
Wrongful acts of which malice is an essential element are:
 Defamation
 Malicious prosecution
 Willful and malicious damage to property
o Intention, Negligence and Recklessness
Intention is an internal fact, something which passes in the mind and direct evidence of which is not available.
There’s a popular saying that it is common knowledge that the thought of man shall not be tried, for the devil himself
knoweth not the thought of man.
In general terms, negligence is “the failure to use ordinary care” through either an act or omission. That is,
negligence occurs when:
 somebody does not exercise the amount of care that a reasonably careful person would use under the
circumstances; or
 somebody does something that a reasonably careful person would not do under the circumstances.
In the case of Dulieu Vs. White & Sons (1901), the plaintiff, a pregnant woman, was sitting behind the counter of her
husband?s 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.
Recklessness is also called as gross negligence. Gross negligence means conduct or a failure to act that is so
reckless that it demonstrates a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury will result. It is sometimes necessary
to establish “gross negligence” as opposed to “ordinary negligence” in order to overcome a legal impediment to a
lawsuit. For example, a government employee who is on the job may be immune from liability for ordinary negligence,
but may remain liable for gross negligence.
o Motive
Motive is the ulterior object or purpose of doing an act. It differs from intention in two ways. First, intention relates to
the immediate objective of an act, whereas, motive refers to the ulterior objective. Secondly, motive refers to some
personal benefit of satisfaction which the actor desires whereas intention need not be so.

6. For example, When A poisons B, the immediate objective is to kill B and so this is A’s intention. The ulterior objective
of A may be to secure B’s estate by inheritance or under a will executed by him and this objective will be A’s motive.
Motive is generally irrelevant in tort.
In the case of Mayor & Co. of Bradford v. Pickles, A sank a well on his land and thereby cut off underground water-
supply from his neighbour B, and B’s well was dried up. It was not unlawful for a land-owner to intercept on his own
land underground percolating water and prevent it from reaching the land of his neighbour. The act did not become
unlawful even though A’s motive in so doing was to coerce B to buy his land at his own price. A, therefore, was not
liable to B, however improper and malicious his motive might be.
o Malfeasance, Misfeasance, Non-feasance
The term “Malfeasance” applies to the commission of an unlawful act. It is generally applicable to those unlawful
acts, such as trespass, which are actionable per se and do not require proof of intention or motive.
The term “Misfeasance” is applicable to improper performance of some lawful act for example when there is
negligence.
The term “non-feasance” applies to the omission to perform some act when there is an obligation to perform it. Non-
feasance of gratuious undertaking does not impose liability, but misfeasance does.
 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
o Fault
If mental elements such as intention, negligence, malice or motive together with an act or omission which is violative
of a right recognized by law plays an important role in creating liability. Such tortious liability has an element of fault to
support it. But there is a sphere of tortious liability which is known as absolute or strict liability, where the element of
fault is conspicuously absent.
In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the rule of strict liability is laid down that an enterprise engaged in a
hazardous or inherently dangerous activity is strictly and absolutely liable for the harm resulting from the operation of
such activity.
Study Notes on Law of Torts – UNIT II
General Defenses
Justification of Torts
o Act of State
An act of State is outside the ordinary law, it is essentially an exercise of sovereign power as a matter of policy or
political expediency. For example, when the person or the property of a person who is not a British-subject and who
is not residing in British territory is injured by an act “done by any representative of Her Majesty’s authority, civil or
military, and which is either previously sanctioned or subsequently ratified by Her Majesty, the person injured has no
remedy for such an act is an act of State.
In the often quoted case of Buron v. Denman, the defendant, a captain in the Royal Navy, released the slaves and
set fire to the slave barracoons of the plaintiff, a Spaniard, on the West coast of Africa, outside British dominions.
The defendant originally had no authority but his act was ratified by the Crown. It was held that the plaintiff had no
remedy against the defendant.

7. o Judicial Acts
The Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850 – Under this Act, no Judge, Magistrate, Justice of the Peace, Collector, or
other person acting judicially, can be sued in any Court, for any act done by him in the discharge of his judicial duty.
Provided that such acts were done in good faith.
o Executive Acts
The State and its officers are not liable when the wrongful act falls within the purview of Act of State. The State is also
vicariously liable for torts committed by its officers in the course of employment except when they are committed
while discharging traditional sovereign functions.
 State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand
o Volenti Non Fit Injuria – Leave and Licence
The general rule is that a person cannot complain for harm done to him if he consented to run the risk of it. For
example a boxer, foot baler, cricketer, etc cannot seek remedy where they are injured while in the game to which they
consented to be involved. Where a defendant pleads this defense, he is in effect saying that the plaintiff consented to
the act, which he is now complaining of. It must be proved that the plaintiff was aware of the nature and extent of the
risk involved.
In the case of Khimji Vs Tanga Mombasa Transport Co. Ltd (1962), the plaintiffs were the personal
representatives of a deceased who met his death while traveling as a passenger in the defendant’s bus. The bus
reached a place where road was flooded and it was risky to cross. The driver was reluctant to continue the journey
but some of the passengers, including the deceased, insisted that the journey should be continued. The driver
eventually yielded and continued with some of the passengers, including the deceased. The bus got drowned
together with all the passengers aboard. The deceased’s dead body was found the following day.
It was held that the plaintiff’s action against the defendants could not be maintained because the deceased knew the
risk involved and assumed it voluntarily and so the defense of Volenti non fit injuria rightly applied.
o Administrative Acts
 Dunlop v. Woolhara Municipal Council
o Acts of Governing Body
o Parental & Quasi-Parental Authority
 Sankunni v. Swaminatha Pattar
o Authorities of Necessity
 Lamb v. Burnett
o Statutory Authority
When the commission of what would otherwise be a tort, is authorized by a statute the injured person is remediless,
unless so far as the legislature has thought it proper to provide compensation to him. The statutory authority extends
not merely to the act authorized by the statute but to all inevitable consequences of that act. But the powers conferred
by the legislature should be exercised with judgment and caution so that no unnecessary damage is done, the person
must do so in good faith and must not exceed the powers granted by the statute otherwise he will be liable.

8. In the Case of Vaugham Vs. Taffvale Railway Co. (1860), A railway company was authorized by statute to run a
railway, which traversed the plaintiff’s land. Sparks from the engine set fire to the plaintiff’s woods. It was held that the
railway company was not liable. It had taken all known care to prevented emission of sparks. The running of
locomotives was statutorily authorized.
o Inevitable Accident
This means an accident, which cannot be prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution or skill of an ordinary
man. It occurs where there is no negligence on the part of the defendant because the law of torts is based on the fault
principle; an injury arising out of an inevitable accident is not actionable in tort.
In the case of Stanley Vs. Powell (1891), the plaintiff was employed to carry cartridge for a shooting party when they
had gone pheasant-shooting. A member of the party fired at a distance but the bullet, after hitting a tree, rebounded
into the plaintiff’s eye. The plaintiff sued. It was held that the defendant was not liable in the light of the circumstance
of inevitable accident.
o Act of God
This is also an inevitable accident caused by natural forces unconnected with human beings e.g. earthquake, floods,
thunderstorm, etc.
In the case of Nichols Vs. Marshland (1876), the defendant has a number of artificial lakes on his land.
Unprecedented rain such as had never been witnessed in living memory caused the banks of the lakes to burst and
the escaping water carried away four bridges belonging to the plaintiff. It was held that the plaintiff’s bridges were
swept by act of God and the defendant was not liable.
o Necessity
Where intentional damage is done so as to prevent greater damage, the defense of necessity can be raised.
Sometimes a person may find himself in a position whereby he is forced to interfere with rights of another person so
as to prevent harm to himself or his property.
In the case of Esso Petroleum Ltd. Vs. Southport Corporation (1956), it was held that the safety of human beings
belongs to a different scale of value from the safety of property. These two are beyond comparison and the necessity
for saving life has all times been considered, as a proper ground for inflicting such damage as may be necessary
upon another’s property.
o Private Defence
Everyone has a right to defend his person, property and family from unlawful harm. A person who is attacked does
not owe his attacker a duty to escape. Everyone whose life is threatened is entitled to defend himself and may use
force in doing so. The force used must be reasonable and proportionate to that of the attacker. Normally, no verbal
provocation can justify a blow
 Morris v. Nugent
o Plaintiff a wrong doer
 Bird v. Holbrook
 National Coal Board v. England
 Pitts v. Hunt

9. o Acts causing slight harm
 Holford v. Bailey
Vicarious Liability
Liability for wrongs committed by others. Generally, a person is liable for his own wrong doings.
Liability By Ratification
 In the course of authority
 Should be made by principal with full knowledge about the wrongful act
 illegal and unlawful acts cannot be ratified
Liability By Relationship between the two (Master & Servant)
Master-Servant: When Master is Liable
 Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Sourashtra
 Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Coggins & Griffith (Liver Pool) Ltd.
 Lllyod v. Grace Smith Co.
 Gregory v. Piper
 Bayley v. Manchester Rly. Co.
 Lionpus v. London General Omni Bus Co.
 Ricett v. Thas Trilling
Master-Servant: When Master is not Liable
 Williams v. Jones
 Storey v. Ashton
 Paulton v. London & S.W. Rly. Co.
 General Engg. Services Ltd. v. Kingston Cheshire
Master-Independent Contractor
Principal-Agent
Company & Directors
Partnership Firms & Partners
Guardian & Ward
Liability By Abetment
In actions of wrong, those who abet the tortious acts are equally liable with those who commit the wrong. A person
who procures the act of another is legally responsible for its consequences
1. If he knowingly and for his own ends induces that other person to commit an actionable wrong, or
2. when the act induced is within the right of the immediate actor and, therefore, not wrongful so far as the actor is
concerned, but is detrimental to a third party and the inducer procures his object by the use of illegal means
directed against that third party
Study Notes on Law of Torts – UNIT III

10. Legal Remedies
There are two kinds of remedies for torts such as judicial remedies and extra-judicial remedies.
Judicial remedies: afforded by the Courts of law. Damages and injunctions are different form of remedies against
the same wrong.
1. awarding of damages
2. granting of injunction
3. specific restitution of property
Extra-judicial remedies: available to a party, in certain cases of torts, by his own acts alone. These remedies are in
the nature of self-help, should not be normally resorted to, for the person resorting to them may frequently exceed his
rights and may be faced with a case civil or criminal alleging that he the law in hjis own hands. It may also give rise to
law and order problems.
1. expulsion of trespasser
2. re-entry on land
3. recaption of goods
4. distress damage feasant
5. abatement of nuisance
1. Damages
A. Introduction
Generally, pecuniary compensation will be awarded for the injury or damaged caused to the plaintiff by the wrongful
act of the defendant. There will be three important question put forth before the Court. They are: 1. the damaged
caused by the defendant’s wrongful act, 2. remoteness, and 3. monetary compensation for the damages.
B. Causation: Theory of directness

If the damage alleged was not caused by the defendant’s wrongful act the question of its remoteness will not arise.
Generally accepted test is ‘but for’ test to determine if the wrongful act is caused by the defendant’s action. If the
damage would not have resulted but for the defendant’s wrongful act, it would be taken to have been caused by the
wrongful act.
The ‘but for’ test is not of universal application and a lesser degree of causal test may be applied in special
circumstances to prevent injustice.
Case Laws:
In Robinson v Post Office, the plaintiff, who was employed by the Post Office, slipped as he was descending a
ladder. The ladder had become slippery due to negligence of the employer. The plaintiff sustained a wound on his left
shin. Later, he visited doctor and the administered A.T.S (anti-tetanusserum). Small quantity of the drug should be
injected before the full dose. Instead, the doctor gave the full dose. The plaintiff suffered encephalities after the 3
days which is a rare possibility of full-dose A.T.S.
Found: It was found that the doctor was not negligent in deciding to inject A.T.S. His negligence lay in not waiting for
half an hour after the test dose.

11. Repolemi’s Case
Scott v Shepheard
Hayne’s v Harwood
C. Remoteness: Theory of Reasonable Cause
i. Foreseability
Case Laws:
Wagon Mound No. 1 Case
Wagon Mound No. 2 Case
Hughes v Lord Advocate
ii. Intended Consequences
Case Laws:
Scott v Shepherd
iii. “Eggshell Skull” cases
Case Laws:
Smith v Leech Brain & Co. Ltd.
iv. Intervening acts or events: Novus actus intervenients
Lamb v Camden London Borough
iv-a. A Summary of principles in considering remoteness
Corr v IBC Vehicle
v. Mitigation of Damage
Selvanayagam v University of West Indies
vi. Further Examples
D. Measure of damages
i. General Principle
ii. Contemptuous, nominal, ordinary and exemplary damages
Thompson v Commissioner of Police
iii. General and special damages
iv. Prospective and Continuing Damages
v. Damages for mental suffering and psychiatric injury or Nervouc Shock
White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire

12. vi. Damages in an action for personal injuries
 a. Non-pecuniary Loss
 b. Pecuniary Loss
 c. Interest
 d. Illustration
vi-a. Damages for Unwanted pregnancy resulting from medical negligence
McFarlane v Tayside Health Board
vii. Injury to Property
E. Interim Damages
F. Compensation under Sec. 357 Cr. P.C
Case Laws:
Harikrishnan and State of Haryana v Sukhbir Singh
F1. Compensation to rape victions
Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v Union of India
G. Provisional Award
Case Laws:
Nagappa v Gurudayal Singh
H. Damages in actions of contract and of tort
2.Injunction
3. Specific Restitution
4. Joint and Several Tort-Feasors
Case Laws:
T.O. Anthony v Karvarnan
5. Contribution between Wrong-Doers
Case Laws:
Merryweather v Nixan
6. Remedies under the Constitution
Study Notes on Law of Torts – UNIT IV
Torts affecting body
Assault
Battery
Mayhem

13. False Imprisonment
Torts affecting reputation
Libel
Slander
Torts affecting freedom
Malicious Prosecution
Malicious Civil Action and Abuse of Legal Process;
Torts affecting domestic and other rights
Marital Rights
Parental Rights
Rights to Service
Contractual Rights
Intimidation and Conspiracy
Torts against property
What is libel? How it differs from slander?
What constitutes false imprisonment? Explain various defenses available to a defendant in case
of false imprisonment.
Discuss the essentials of defamation with the help of decided cases.
Define assault and distinguish it from battery.
Define ‘assault’ and distinguish it from ‘Battery’.
Define defamation. Discuss briefly the various defenses available in an action for defamation.
Discuss ‘Assault’ and ‘Battery’ with the help of cases.
What is ‘Malicious prosecution’? Explain with essentials.
Rahim assaulted Buron. Buron brought an action and recovered damages for the assault. After
sometimes Buron had to have a bone removed from his skull because of injuries he had received;
he then brought another action in respect of this injury. Is Rahim liable?
‘Sham’ is fast asleep in a room and ‘Ram’ closes the main door of the room from outside and
opens in before ‘Sham’ wakes up. Whether ‘Ram’ is guilty of falsely imprisoning ‘Sham’, while he
is asleep?
Write a short note on: Malicious Prosecution
Intimidation
A famous biscuit company published a picture in a newspaper showing one famous Cricket
Player Sachin eating their biscuit. Advise him about his legal remedies.
A cat strayed from its owner’s land into the land of a neighbour and killed birds kept there. Is
there owner of cat liable?

14. Short note on Innuendo
False Imprisonment
Model Question Papers for LLB First Semester – Law of Torts
UNIT I: Law of Torts Model Question Papers
ESSAY QUESTIONS
 [Jan 2010] – “Every injury is damage but every damage is not injury.” Discuss.
 [Jan 2010] – What is Tort? Discuss the essential elements of tortious liability.
 [June 2010] – Define ‘Tort’ and distinguish it from crime and breach of contract.
 [June 2010] – Explain the essential conditions of Tort with decided cases.
 [Jan 2011] – Define tort and distinguish it from crime and contract.
 [Jan 2011] – Explain the importance of mental elements in tort.
 [Jan 2012] – Trace the development of law of torts in England and India.
 [Jan 2012] – Distinguish between Damnum Sine injuria and injuria sine damnum with the help of leading cases.
 [Dec 2012] “A torts are civil wrongs,but all civil wrong are not torts”.Justify the statement with leading cases.
 [Dec 2012] Define torts, Distinguish torts from contractual and criminal liability.
SHORT NOTE QUESTIONS
 [Jan 2010] – Write a short note on: Distinguish between Tort and Crime.
 [Jan 2010] – Malice.
 [June 2010] – ‘X’, a banker refuses to honour customer’s cheque having sufficient funds in his hands belonging to
the customer. Customer intends to file a suit against the banker, will he succeed?
 [June 2010] – ‘A’, a barber was running a Saloon. ‘B’, a wealthy person was one of his customers. ‘A’ and ‘B’
quarelled for some reason. ‘B’, with a malicious intention, to cause loss to ‘A’, employed some barbers and
opened a saloon just opposite to ‘A”s saloon and charges for less. Consequently, ‘A’ lost his customers and
suffered heavy loss. Can ‘A’ recover damages from ‘B’?
 [Jan 2011] – “Injuria Sine Damnum and Damnum Sine Injuria”
 [Jan 2011] – Evolution of law of tort in India
 [Jan 2012] – Plaintiff, the owner of a coal mines, brought an action against defendant, a Miner’s Union, for
inducing its workmen to make them to take certain holidays, for keep up the price of coal, by that plaintiff suffered
loss, whether the defendant’s are liable?
 [Jan 2012] – Distinguish between Intention and Motive.
 [Dec 2012] Malice in fact and malice in law.
 [Dec 2012] Explain the maxim ‘ubi’ jus ibi remedium”.
UNIT II: Law of Torts Model Question Papers
ESSAY QUESTIONS
 [Jan 2010] – Explain the doctrine of “violenti non fit injuria” with various exceptions.
 [Jan 2010] – What are the basis for Vicarious Liability?
 [June 2010] – Briefly explain the various defences available to the defendant in an action for tort.
 [June 2010] – Examine the general rule that an employer is not liable for the torts of his independent contractor?
Are there any exceptions to it?
 [Jan 2011] – Discuss with illustrations the liability of a master for the wrongful acts of his servant.

15.  [Jan 2011] – Explain the defenses to defendant if that person committed the Tort.
 [Jan 2012] – Explain ‘plaintiff’s fault’ and ‘act of god’ as general defenses, with the decided cases.
 [Jan 2012] – What is ‘vicarious liability’? Explain with decided cases.
 [Dec 2012] “One who agree to suffer the risk, has no remedy for that in tort”- Explain with exceptiosns.
 [Dec 2012] Discuss with illustrations the liability of a master for the wrongful acts of his servant.
SHORT NOTE QUESTIONS
 [Jan 2010] – Write a short note on: Private Defence.
 [Jan 2010] – Statutory Authority
 [June 2010] – Write a note on the liability of independent contractor. Explain.
 [June 2010] – The plaintiff’s and the defendant’s dogs were fighting. The defendant was beating them in order to
separate them, the plaintiff was looking on. The defendant accidently hit the plaintiff in the eye causing him a
severe injury. The plaintiff brings an action against the defendant can he succeed?
 [Jan 2011] – Rescue Cases
 [Jan 2011] – Doctrine of common employment
 [Jan 2012] – Difference between servant and independent contractor.
 [Jan 2012] – Rescue Cases
 [Dec 2012] ‘A’ has given some amount and cheque to his friend,Who was an employee of the bank for depositing
in the A’s amount.But the friend, instead of depositing in the A’s amount, misappropriated it. Is the bank liable?
 [Dec 2012] Raju was an employee in a stone quarry. He was testing some explosive in the, site without wearing
precautionary coverings, which were provided by the employer. Explosion took place and Raju gets seriously
injured. Raju brings an action against employer to recover damages.Decide.
UNIT III: Law of Torts Model Question Papers
ESSAY QUESTIONS
 [Jan 2010] – Explain the ingredients of Tort of Negligence with the help of decided cases.
 [Jan 2010] – Discuss the various kinds of judicial and extrajudicial remedies that are available to the plaintiff who
has suffered an injury.
 [June 2010] – Explain the essential elements of ‘negligence’, with the help of decided cases.
 [June 2010] – Discuss the rule of ‘Strict liability’ with exceptions.
 [Jan 2011] – Explain strict liability with reference to Rylands Vs. Fletcher
 [Jan 2011] – Define Nuisance. Explain kinds of nuisance.
 [Jan 2012] – Discuss the role of foresee-ability in the determination of remoteness of damage with decided cases.
 [Jan 2012] – Explain the kinds of Nuisance, with decided cases.
 [Dec 2012] Explain the concept of strict liability and state the exceptions.
 [Dec 2012] Comment on the general principles of contributory negligence and what is ‘Doctrine of alternative
danger’ ?
SHORT NOTE QUESTIONS
 [Jan 2010] – The plaintiff, who was in an advanced state of pregnancy was standing behind her husbands’s
public bar. The defendant’s servant negligently drove a horse van into the bar with the result that she got a severe
shock and delivered child which became dull headed. Advise her.
 [Jan 2010] – Plaintiff resided in a house next to a Roman Catholic Chapel of which defendant was the Priest. The
Chapel bell kept ringing at all hours of day and night. Advise the plaintiff.

16.  [June 2010] – Plaintiff resided next to a Roman Catholic Church of which defendant was the priest. The Church
bell kept ringing during day and night disturbing the plaintiff. Advise the plaintiff.
 [June 2010] – ‘A’ threw a lighted squib into the market house which was crowded, which fell in the shed on ‘B’. ‘B’
threw it away in the same manner, which fell on the shed of ‘C’. ‘C’ also threw it away in the same manner, which
burst in the face of ‘P’ and injured him. Who is liable for the injury?
 [Jan 2011] – A circus lion escapes and injures some spectators. Discuss the liability of the manager of the circus
for the injury caused.
 [Jan 2011] – ‘X’ wrongfully obstructed a road by putting a pole across it. ‘Y’ riding rashly on the motor cycle in the
dusk, was overthrown by the pole and injured. The pole was visible at a distance of 100 meters. Is ‘X’ liable to Y
for damages?
 [Jan 2012] – The plaintiff’s and defendant’s dogs were fighting. The defendant was beating them in order to
separate them, and the plaintiff was looking. Defendant accidently hit plaintiff’s eye causing severe injury. Is
defendant liable for damage?
 [Jan 2012] – Res Ipsa loquitur
 [Dec 2012] The plaintiff resided in a house next to a roman Catholic Church, of which the defendant was the
priest and the Church bell was being rung at all hours of the day and night. The plaintiff filed a suit for
nuisance.Decide.
 [Dec 2012] What are the remedies available for nuisance ?
UNIT IV: Law of Torts Model Question Papers
ESSAY QUESTIONS
 [Jan 2010] – What is libel? How it differs from slander?
 [Jan 2010] – What constitutes false imprisonment? Explain various defenses available to a defendant in case of
false imprisonment.
 [June 2010] – Discuss the essentials of defamation with the help of decided cases.
 [June 2010] – Define assault and distinguish it from battery.
 [Jan 2011] – Define ‘assault’ and distinguish it from ‘Battery’.
 [Jan 2011] – Define defamation. Discuss briefly the various defenses available in an action for defamation.
 [Jan 2012] – Discuss ‘Assault’ and ‘Battery’ with the help of cases.
 [Jan 2012] – What is ‘Malicious prosecution’? Explain with essentials.
 [Dec 2012] What is defamation ? Explain the defences to an action for defamation.
 [Dec 2012] Discuss ‘Assault’ and ‘Battery’ with the help of decided cases.
SHORT NOTE QUESTIONS
 [Jan 2010] – Rahim assaulted Buron. Buron brought an action and recovered damages for the assault. After
sometimes Buron had to have a bone removed from his skull because of injuries he had received; he then
brought another action in respect of this injury. Is Rahim liable?
 [Jan 2010] – ‘Sham’ is fast asleep in a room and ‘Ram’ closes the main door of the room from outside and opens
in before ‘Sham’ wakes up. Whether ‘Ram’ is guilty of falsely imprisoning ‘Sham’, while he is asleep?
 [June 2010] – Write a short note on: Malicious Prosecution
 [June 2010] – Intimidation
 [Jan 2011] – A famous biscuit company published a picture in a newspaper showing one famous Cricket Player
Sachin eating their biscuit. Advise him about his legal remedies.

17.  [Jan 2011] – A cat strayed from its owner’s land into the land of a neighbour and killed birds kept there. Is there
owner of cat liable?
 [Jan 2012] – Short note on Innuendo
 [Jan 2012] – False Imprisonment
 [Dec 2012] False imprisonment.
 [Dec 2012] malicious Prosecution.
UNIT V: Law of Torts Model Question Papers
ESSAY QUESTIONS
 [Jan 2010] – What are the objects of the Central Consumer Protection Council?
 [Jan 2010] – Explain the composition, powers and jurisdiction of National Commission.
 [June 2010] – Define and explain the terms “Consumer” and “Services”, under the Consumer Protection Act,
1986.
 [June 2010] – State the procedure to be followed by the District Consumer Forum on the receipt of a complaint.
 [Jan 2011] – Explain the procedure for making a complaint to the District Forum.
 [Jan 2011] – Explain in detail the composition, appointment and jurisdiction of State Commission.
 [Jan 2012] – Explain the composition, appointment and jurisdiction of National Commission.
 [Jan 2012] – Who is consumer? Explain the objectives of the Consumer Protection act 1986
 [Dec 2012] Explain the liability of doctors under Consumer Production Act, with decided cases.
 [Dec 2012] Explain compostion,appointment and jurisdiction of district forum.
SHORT NOTE QUESTIONS
 [Jan 2010] – Write a short note on: District Forum
 [Jan 2010] – Consumer
 [June 2010] – Write a short note on: Deficiency in service.
 [June 2010] – Complaint.
 [Jan 2011] – Short note on Appeals
 [Jan 2011] – Service
 [Jan 2012] – Short note on Service
 [Jan 2012] – Restrictive trade practice.
 [Dec 2012] Rights of consumers.
 [Dec 2012] Monopolystic Trade practice.