unit 3 constituents of tort.pdf and other information

Law enforcement agencies and police departments

1. CONSTITUENTS OF TORTS
PRESENTED BY SANJANAKUMARI
BALLB‘B’

2. INTRODUCTION
•THE WORD “TORT” HAS BEEN DERIVED FROM THE LATIN WORD “TORTUM”, WHICH MEANS “TO TWIST” OR
“SOMETHING THAT IS TWISTED OR WRONG.”
•A TORT IS A CIVIL WRONG THAT IS NOT A BREACH OF CONTRACT OR BREACH OF TRUST BUT GIVES RISE TO A
LEGAL LIABILITY.
•THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE LAW OF TORTS IS TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION TO THE INJURED PARTY AND
MAINTAIN PROPER STANDARDS OF CONDUCT IN SOCIETY
•ACCORDING TO WINFIELD,
•> “TORTIOUS LIABILITY ARISES FROM THE BREACH OF A DUTY PRIMARILYFIXED BY THE LAW; SUCH DUTY IS
TOWARDS PERSONS GENERALLY, AND ITS BREACH IS REDRESSABLEBY AN ACTION FOR UNLIQUIDATED
DAMAGES.”

4. MEANING OF CONSTITUENTS OF TORT
1.FOR AN ACT TO BE CONSIDERED A TORT, CERTAIN ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OR CONSTITUENTS
MUST BE PRESENT.
2.THESE ARE THE BASIC CONDITIONS THAT MUST BE FULFILLED BEFORE A PERSON CAN BE HELD
LIABLE FOR A TORTIOUS ACT.

5. THE MAIN CONSTITUENTS OF A TORT ARE
1.A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION
2.LEGAL DAMAGE (INJURY IN THE EYES OF LAW)
3.LEGAL REMEDY ( ACTIONABLE IN THE COURT OF LAW)

6. 1. WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION
A TORT ARISES ONLY WHEN THERE IS A WRONGFUL
ACT OR AN UNLAWFUL OMISSION OF DUTY.
THE ACT MUST BE LEGALLY WRONGFUL, MEANING
IT VIOLATES THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF ANOTHER
PERSON.
IT MAY BE AN ACT OF COMMISSION (DOING
SOMETHING ONE OUGHT NOT TO DO) OR AN ACT
OF OMISSION (FAILING TO DO SOMETHING ONE
OUGHT TO DO).

7. •EXAMPLE:
•THROWING STONES AT SOMEONE’S HOUSE IS A WRONGFUL ACT.
•NOT REMOVING A DANGEROUS PIT IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE IS A WRONGFUL OMISSION.
•CASE LAW:
• DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON (1932)
•IN THIS CASE, THE DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER WAS HELD LIABLE WHEN A CONSUMER FELL
ILL AFTER DRINKING A GINGER BEER CONTAINING A DECOMPOSED SNAIL. THE
MANUFACTURER HAD FAILED IN HIS DUTY OF CARE — AN OMISSION THAT CAUSED INJURY.

9. 2. LEGAL DAMAGE (INJURY IN THE EYES OF LAW)
•FOR A TORT TO EXIST, THERE MUST BE INFRINGEMENT OF A LEGAL RIGHT.
•IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT ACTUAL LOSS OR DAMAGE IS CAUSED; EVEN A VIOLATION OF A
LEGAL RIGHT IS ENOUGH TO MAKE AN ACT TORTIOUS.
•THIS CONCEPT IS EXPLAINED UNDER TWO IMPORTANT LEGAL MAXIMS:

10. •A) INJURIA SINE DAMNO
•MEANING: INJURY WITHOUT DAMAGE
•THIS MEANS THAT IF A PERSON’S LEGAL RIGHT IS VIOLATED, HE CAN BRING AN ACTION EVEN IF
HE SUFFERS NO ACTUAL LOSS.
•CASE LAW:
• ASHBY V. WHITE (1703)
•THE PLAINTIFF WAS A QUALIFIED VOTER BUT WAS NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE BY THE DEFENDANT.
THOUGH HIS PREFERRED CANDIDATE WON, HIS LEGAL RIGHT TO VOTE WAS VIOLATED. THE
COURT HELD THE DEFENDANT LIABLE.
•B) DAMNUM SINE INJURIA
•MEANING: DAMAGE WITHOUT INJURY
•THIS MEANS THAT IF A PERSON SUFFERS LOSS OR HARM BUT NO LEGAL RIGHT IS VIOLATED, NO
ACTION LIES IN TORT.
•CASE LAW:
• GLOUCESTER GRAMMAR SCHOOL CASE (1410)
•A TEACHER SET UP A RIVAL SCHOOL AND CAUSED FINANCIAL LOSS TO ANOTHER TEACHER. THE
COURT HELD THAT SINCE NO LEGAL RIGHT WAS VIOLATED, THERE WAS NO TORT, EVEN
THOUGH THERE WAS ACTUAL DAMAGE.

11. 3. LEGAL REMEDY (ACTIONABLE WRONG)
•EVERY WRONGFUL ACT MUST BE ACTIONABLE IN A COURT OF LAW TO BE CONSIDERED A TORT.
•IF THERE IS NO LEGAL REMEDY, THE WRONG REMAINS A MORAL OR SOCIAL WRONG, NOT A TORT.
•THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE IS EXPRESSED IN THE MAXIM:
•> “UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM” — WHERE THERE IS A RIGHT, THERE IS A REMEDY.
•THIS MEANS IF A PERSON’S LEGAL RIGHT IS VIOLATED, THE LAW PROVIDES A REMEDY IN THE FORM OF
DAMAGES, INJUNCTION, OR OTHER RELIEFS.
•EXAMPLE:
•IF SOMEONE PUBLISHES FALSE STATEMENTS THAT HARM ANOTHER’S REPUTATION, THE INJURED PERSON HAS A
LEGAL REMEDY BY FILING A SUIT FOR DEFAMATION.

12. OTHER IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF TORT
•BESIDES THE THREE MAIN CONSTITUENTS, CERTAIN ADDITIONAL FACTORS ARE ALSO IMPORTANT IN ESTABLISHING
TORTIOUS LIABILITY:
•A) DUTY OF CARE
•EVERY PERSON OWES A DUTY TO ACT WITH REASONABLE CARE SO AS NOT TO CAUSE HARM TO OTHERS.
•EXAMPLE: A DRIVER MUST DRIVE SAFELY TO AVOID INJURY TO PEDESTRIANS.
•B) LEGAL INJURY
•THE INJURY MUST BE RECOGNIZED BY LAW, NOT JUST AN EMOTIONAL OR MORAL HURT.
•C) INTENTION, NEGLIGENCE OR MALICE
•A WRONGFUL ACT MAY BE DONE INTENTIONALLY, NEGLIGENTLY, OR MALICIOUSLY. THE DEGREE OF FAULT
DETERMINES THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE TORT.

13. CASE LAWS SUMMARY
•CASE NAME PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED
•ASHBY V. WHITE (1703) VIOLATION OF LEGAL RIGHT IS ACTIONABLE EVEN WITHOUT ACTUAL
DAMAGE (INJURIA SINE DAMNO).
•GLOUCESTER GRAMMAR SCHOOL CASE (1410) MERE LOSS WITHOUT VIOLATION OF LEGAL
RIGHT IS NOT ACTIONABLE (DAMNUM SINE INJURIA).
•DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON (1932) ESTABLISHED THE PRINCIPLE OF DUTY OF CARE IN
NEGLIGENCE.
•RYLANDS V. FLETCHER (1868) LAID DOWN THE RULE OF STRICT LIABILITY.

14. CONCLUSION
•THE LAW OF TORTS IS BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF PROTECTING LEGAL RIGHTS AND
ENFORCING DUTIES.
•TO ESTABLISH A TORT, THERE MUST BE A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION, LEGAL DAMAGE,
AND A LEGAL REMEDY.
•THESE CONSTITUENTS ENSURE THAT JUSTICE IS PROVIDED TO THE INJURED PARTY AND THAT
INDIVIDUALS MAINTAIN PROPER CONDUCT IN SOCIETY.
•HENCE, THE LAW OF TORTS PLAYS A VITAL ROLE IN UPHOLDING JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, AND
ACCOUNTABILITY.