Essential Elements of Torts | Law of Torts - CLAT PG PDF Download

Introduction

The fundamental components that constitute a tort include a wrongful act or omission, a breach of duty as defined by law, and the violation of another person's legal rights. If an individual fails to adhere to the legal standards of behavior expected of a reasonable and prudent person, either intentionally or negligently, they are considered to have committed a wrongful act. For instance, infringing upon someone's right to property, bodily safety, or other legal entitlements constitutes a legal wrong.

Fundamental Concepts of Tort Law

Tort law is built on three key concepts: a wrongful act or omission, a breach of duty as set by law, and the violation of someone's legal rights. When a person fails to meet the legal standards of behavior expected from a reasonable and careful individual, either on purpose or by accident, they commit a wrongful act. For example, violating someone's right to their property, personal safety, or other legal entitlements is considered a legal wrong.

Wrongful Act or Omission

A wrongful act can be either a positive action or a failure to act (omission) and can occur due to negligence, intention, or breach of strict duty, like speeding while driving. The act or omission must be recognized by law; moral or social wrongs do not attract liability. For instance, not helping a starving person or saving a drowning child is not legally actionable. However, failing to perform a legal duty constitutes a wrongful act. In cases like Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwati, where the Municipal Corporation's neglect of a clock tower leads to fatalities, the Corporation is liable for its omission. Similarly, failing to provide a safe system, as in General Cleaning Corporation Limited v. Christmas, is also considered an omission.

Legal Damage

Legal damage is the second crucial element in establishing a tort. The plaintiff must demonstrate that a wrongful act, either through action or omission, breached a legal duty or violated a legal right vested in them. There must be a violation of a legal right for an action to be valid under tort law. If a legal right is violated, the action is actionable regardless of whether the plaintiff suffered any loss, as highlighted by the maxim "Injuria sine damnum."

Injuria refers to the infringement of a legal right, while damnum means substantial harm, loss, or damage. The term sine means without. Conversely, if there is no violation of a legal right, no action can be taken in court, even if the plaintiff suffered loss, harm, or damage due to the defendant's actions. This is encapsulated in the maxim "Damnum sine injuria."

Injuria Sine Damno and Damnum Sine Injuria

Injuria Sine Damno

• This legal principle signifies the violation of a person's legal private right, regardless of the absence of actual loss or damage.
• When a person's right is infringed, even without any tangible harm, they are entitled to seek legal recourse.

Example: Imagine a scenario where someone illegally enters your property without causing any physical damage. Even though no harm was done, your legal right to privacy and property has been violated. In such cases, you have the right to take legal action against the trespasser.

• In legal terms, when someone violates your private right, you have the right to take action against them, even if you haven't suffered any actual damage or loss.
• This principle is known as "actionable per se," which means that the mere infringement of your right is enough to warrant legal action.
• For example, in cases of assault, battery, false imprisonment, or libel, you don't need to prove special damages; the wrongful act itself is sufficient to claim damages.
• The court is obligated to award at least nominal damages to the plaintiff if no actual damage is proven.
• This legal maxim emphasizes three key points:
• Infringement of a legal right: When someone's legal right is violated, they have the right to take action.
• No actual loss or damage required: You don't need to prove any actual loss or damage to pursue legal action.
• Actionable per se: The infringement of a private right is sufficient grounds for legal action.

Case Law on Actionable Per Se

Ashby v. White (1703)

• Background: In the case of Ashby v. White, the plaintiff was a qualified voter in a Parliamentary election. However, the defendant, who was a returning officer, wrongfully refused to accept the plaintiff's vote. Interestingly, the plaintiff did not suffer any loss from this refusal because the candidate he intended to vote for won the election.
• Judgment: Despite the lack of tangible loss, the plaintiff succeeded in his legal action against the defendant.
• Legal Principle: Lord Holt, the Chief Justice, made important observations in this case:
• 
  
  • If a person has a legal right, they must have a means to protect and uphold it. This includes having a remedy if they are harmed in the exercise or enjoyment of that right.
  • Imagining a right without a remedy is futile, as rights and remedies are interconnected. Every injury implies some form of damage, even if it doesn't cost the injured party any money.
  • For example, in cases of slanderous words, a person can take legal action even if they don't suffer any financial loss due to the words spoken.
  • Similarly, if someone physically harms another person, like giving a slap on the ear, the injured party has the right to take legal action, regardless of whether it costs them anything.
  • Even actions like riding over someone's property without causing any damage give the property owner the right to take legal action because it invades their property rights.

Municipal Board of Agra v. Asharfi Lal

• Facts: The plaintiff, Asharfi Lal, was entitled to be included as an elector on the electoral roll. However, his name was wrongfully omitted from the roll, depriving him of his right to vote.
• Judgment: The court held that if any duly qualified citizen or person entitled to be on the electoral roll is omitted and deprived of their right to vote, they have suffered a legal wrong. Being deprived of a right recognized by law gives the individual a remedy against the person responsible for the deprivation.

Damnum Sine Injuria

Damnum sine injuria refers to a situation where there is a significant loss without the violation of any legal right. In such cases, no legal action can be taken. The key factor is the infringement of a legal right, not just the loss of money or value.

Key Points

• Loss without Legal Right: Damnum sine injuria involves actual loss without the breach of a legal right.
• No Legal Action: In such cases, no legal action can be pursued.
• Violation of Legal Right: The essential element is the violation of a legal right, not merely the loss of monetary value.

Forms of Harm Not Recognized by Law

• Loss suffered by individual traders due to competition.
• Damage caused by actions taken out of necessity to prevent a greater harm.
• Harm caused by defamatory statements made during a privileged occasion.
• Trivial, indefinite, or hard-to-prove harm.
• Situations where criminal prosecution is more appropriate, such as public nuisance or causing death.
• No right to damages for contempt of court.

Gloucester Grammar School Case

• Case Summary: The defendant, a schoolmaster, established a competing school, forcing the plaintiff to lower their fees.
• Court Ruling: The plaintiff had no legal remedy for the losses incurred due to competition.
• Legal Principle: Competition can lead to losses without legal recourse.

Chesmore v. Richards

• Case Overview: The plaintiff, a mill owner, had been using water from a stream for over 60 years, primarily supplied by percolating underground water. The defendants dug a well on their land, reducing the water supply to the plaintiff's mill.
• Court Decision: The court ruled in favor of the defendants, as their actions did not constitute legal harm to the plaintiff.
• Legal Principle: The case illustrates the concept of damnum sine injuria, where the plaintiff suffered a loss without a legal right being violated.

Bradford Corporation v. Pickles

• Facts: The defendant, feeling aggrieved by Bradford Corporation's refusal to buy his land for a water supply scheme, deliberately sank a shaft on his property to disrupt the underground water flow to the plaintiffs' reservoir.
• Court Decision: The court ruled in favor of the defendant, stating that he was within his legal rights, despite his ulterior motive to pressure the plaintiff into purchasing his land.
• Legal Principle: The case exemplifies the principle of damnum sine injuria, where the plaintiffs had no cause of action because the defendant's actions, though motivated by ill will, were legally permissible.

Moghul Steamship Company v. McGregor Gow & Co

• Context: A group of steamship companies collaborated to standardize cargoes and freight charges between China and Europe, offering a general rebate of 5 percent to all suppliers shipping with their members.
• Impact on Plaintiffs: The plaintiffs were forced to lower their rates to match the unremunerative level set by the defendants' actions.
• Court Ruling: The court found no cause of action against the defendants, who acted within their legal rights to enhance their trade and profits. The plaintiffs did not suffer legal injury, and the case fell under the principle of damnum sine injuria.

Dickson v. Renter's Telegraph Company

• Scenario:'A' sent a telegram to 'B' for the shipment of goods. However, the telegraph company mistakenly delivered the telegram to 'C', who then sent the goods to 'A'. 'A' refused the goods, leading 'C' to sue the telegraph company for damages.
• Court Verdict: The court ruled in favor of the telegraph company, stating that it owed no duty of care to 'C'. Since no legal rights of 'C' were infringed, there was no cause of action against the company.

Rogers v. Rajendera Dutt

• Background: The plaintiff owned a tugboat used for towing ships under the supervision of Government Pilots in Hoogly. When the plaintiff demanded an exorbitant price for towing services, the Superintendent of Marine prohibited the future use of the tug, depriving the owner of profits.
• Court Finding: The court determined that the plaintiff had no legal right to compel the Government to employ their tugboat, leading to the decision against the plaintiff.

Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal

• A legal act, even if motivated by malice, does not make the defendant liable.
• The plaintiff can only claim compensation if they prove to have suffered injury due to the defendant's illegal act.
• The plaintiff built 16 shops on old foundations without proper notice and sanction as required by the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act.
• The Town Area Committee (defendants) demolished the illegal construction.
• When the plaintiff sued for compensation, alleging malice on the part of the municipal commissioner, the court ruled that the defendants were not liable.
• No "injuria" (violation of legal right) could be established because demolishing an illegally constructed building did not constitute "injuria" to the property owner.

In Action v. Blundell

• The defendants dug a coal pit, intercepting water that affected the plaintiff's well, which was less than 20 years old and about a mile away.
• The court held that the defendants were not liable.
• It was stated that the surface owner has the right to dig and use underground resources at their discretion.
• If this activity interferes with a neighbor's water supply, it falls under "damnum sine injuria," which is not grounds for legal action.

Distinction between Injuria sine damnum and Damnum sine injuria

• Injuria sine damnum refers to the violation of a legal right without any actual loss or damages.
• Damnum sine injuria involves actual or substantial damages without the infringement of a legal right.
• Injuria sine damnum is always actionable, meaning legal action can be taken.
• On the other hand, Damnum sine injuria is never actionable, meaning no legal action can be taken.

Legal Remedy

Ubi jus ibi remedium(Where there is a right there is a remedy). A right without a remedy is of no use. Right is a person's capacity to compel another person to do or to abstain from doing an act, and capacity to compel means legal capacity to compel. Unless there is a legal remedy, there cannot be legal compulsion. Therefore, a right without a remedy would be redundant.

There are two types of rights.

1. Absolute rights:

• An absolute right is a right the violation of which amounts to a wrong and gives rise to cause of action. There is no further requirement of showing any loss or injury. The tort which is based on the violation of an absolute right is actionable per se.

2. Conditional rights:

• A conditional right is a right the violation of which by itself does not amount to a wrong so as to give rise to cause of action. The plaintiff has to further show that he has suffered loss due to the violation of that right. Loss is a condition precedent for giving rise to cause of action.