Contents

ABSTRACT: ......................................................................................... 2
INTRODUCTION: ............................................................................... 2
1.1 RESEARCH PARAGRAGH: ................................................... 2
1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: ...................................................... 2
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTION: ........................................................ 2
1.4 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS:.................................................... 2
1.5 RESEARCH SCOPE: ................................................................ 3
1.6 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:............................................. 3
ROLE OF TORT LAW AS A TOOL FOR PERSONAL INJURIES:
................................................................................................................ 3
PERSONAL INJURIES CAUSED BY NEGLIGENCE: ........................ 5
BIRTH INJURY: .................................................................................... 5
SLIP AND FALL CASES: ..................................................................... 6
MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE: ................................................................... 6
CONCLUSION:...................................................................................... 7

1
ABSTRACT:
Personal injury gives rise to liability. There are various ways for personal injury to arise such as
negligence, medical negligence, negligence on road, birth injury etc.… Is tort law a useful tool
for persona injury? There are many cases which shows the effectiveness of tort law and on the
other side it is shown how tort law gives no compensation for personal injury in a tortious act.
However, tort law has good impact on society nowadays as it provides with quick remedies.

INTRODUCTION:
What is personal Injury Law?

It is legal remedies and defenses in civil suits caused by a wrongful act. The word “tort” means
wrong or harm. On contrary to criminal law, a tort action does not involve the government
prosecution with the wrongdoer but instead these cases are about a private plaintiff seeking
damages commonly money for the harm caused by the defendant’s actions. Besides negligence
being the main reason of causing a personal injury, many other cases fall in the category of a
personal injury such as assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass and many more. But what is
the role of tort law for personal injuries?

1.1 RESEARCH PARAGRAGH:

To learn about the role of tort for personal injuries.

1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE:

To what extend tort law plays a useful role for personal injuries?

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTION:

Does tort law give effective remedy for personal injuries?

1.4 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS:

Justice is being done by tort law to those whose legal rights have been infringed.

2
1.5 RESEARCH SCOPE:

To find the liability of personal injury

1.6 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

Analysis and research of the judgements of the apes court relating to personal injury

ROLE OF TORT LAW AS A TOOL FOR PERSONAL INJURIES:

According to Fraser; tort is an infringement of a legal right in rem of a private individual, giving
a right of compensation of the suit of the injured party which means that any legal injury to a
person leads to legal remedy.

A personal injury seeks compensation for wrongful acts like accidents or social wrongs such as
defamation of a character. In a personal injury law suit the plaintiff is the person injured and the
defendant is the person who has cause an injury to the victim. Personal injury includes false
arrest, detention, malicious prosecution, wrongful eviction, invasion of privacy, medical
malpractice and dog bites. In fatal accidents, the family of the decedent may bring a wrongful
death suit against the tortfeasor. For example, in the case of Tiruveriamuthu Pillai Alias B.T vs
the municipal council1 the plaintiff’s dog was killed by the municipality while killing stray dogs.
He submitted that killing his dog was illegal and unjustifiable and claimed rs50 as damages
representing the value of his dog and rs50 for mental agony. The municipality was held liable for
the tortious act committed but only rs50 compensation was given to the plaintiff for the value of
his dog, but no damages was recovered by him for his mental pain.

In Kavita vs Deepak and others 2 the supreme court held that when court determines
compensation either for permanent or temporarily disabled persons must make efforts to

1
AIR 1961 Mad 230
2
Kavita vs Deepak and others 22 august 2012

3
compensate them not only for physical injury and treatment but also for loss of earning, inability
to lead a normal life and the amount awarded for the loss to be not only the award for pain and
suffering but also for enjoyment of life or the amount awarded for medical expenses. This
concludes that compensation is not only for personal injuries but also to lead a normal life in
future.

But on the contrary in Ivaturi veera Subramanyam vs president, District Board 3 the plaintiffs a
father and his 3 minor children, brought the suit for damages under the fatal Accidents Act, of an
accident caused by the defendants which was told liable for the falling of trees on his cart which
took the life of his wife and two children aged one and three years old. The amount of damages
claimed by the plaintiff was rs6000. However, the defendant succeeded on not held liable for this
tortious act on three grounds:

 That they are not liable for act of nonfeasance which means omission to perform lawful
act.
 The suit was barred by limitation (suit should be filed within six months but was done
after the time period).
 The plaintiff failed to prove any pecuniary damage.

And the district board also said that it was the plaintiff’s negligence to travel in such a stormy
weather. Thus, the defendant was not held liable.

It can however be seen that not compensation was given for this personal injury. The
question which shall always remain unanswered is what if the plaintiff filed the suit within
the 6 months and the defendant would prove him as an unsound mind person who is not in a
state of proving anything? What if that was the only reason for the plaintiff not to file the suit
as he lost his wife and two kids which is real mental pain and suffering? Through this case
it’s proved that not every time remedy is provided for personal injury.

The burden of proof in personal injury cases is lower of that of criminal cases arising out of
same actions. This means that one may be able to recover in a persona injury law suit, even if
the defendant was acquitted of criminal charges arising out of the same action. The main
objective in a personal injury law suit is to recover monetary compensation instead of giving

3
AIR 1941 Mad 733

4
 punishment to the defendant. But in some cases, punishable damages may be given for
malicious misconduct by a defendant.

PERSONAL INJURIES CAUSED BY NEGLIGENCE:

Personal injuries are the result of negligence. In most cases, the plaintiff compensation will have
to prove three most important points which are:

 The defendant’s duty of care.

 The defendant’s breach of that duty.
 And actual damages should be proved.

There are cases where negligence leads to no compensation for personal injuries. In Goodes vs
East Sussex corporation 4 the plaintiff was driving his car and overtook on a straight stretch of
road when a rear wheel skidded on a patch of black ice. He lost control and the car crashed into a
bridge. He suffered serious injuries and was almost entirely paralyzed. The plaintiff alleged that
there was a breach of statutory duty under section 41 to “maintain the highway”. It was held that
the defendant is not liable as maintenance included repair and is wide in concept thus, the duty
was not absolute and there was no need for the road to be perfect. The duty was just to put the
road in a good state of repair.

It can be clearly seen that serious personal injury was present in this case but still no
compensation was recovered.

BIRTH INJURY:
Birth injury is including in the category of personal injuries. In Walker vs greatnorthen Railway
5
the plaintiff’s mother, while travelling on the defendant’s railway was injured by the latter’s
negligence. As consequence, the child was born deformed and claimed damages. It was held that
there was no breach of duty as the defendant stated that the duty was only to carry the mother
and not the child as no knowledge of the child’s existence was there and the medical evidence to
prove the plaintiff’s claim was uncertain.

Again, it is seen that no remedy was provided for the personal injury to the plaintiff.

4
Goodes vs East Sussex corporation
5
Walker vs Greatnorthen Railway (1890)

5
In Montreal Tramways vs Leveille 6 the judgment for personal injury is completely different from
that of the two prior ones. In this case, the respondent’s wife was seven months pregnant and
while descending from a tram car belonging to the appellant company when by reason of the
negligence of the motorman she fell from the vehicle and was injured. Two months later, she
gave birth to a female child who was born with club feet. The respondent brought an action
against the appellant company claiming that the deformity of the child was the direct
consequence of the negligence of the company by which the mother was injured. The judgement
was in the favor of the respondent, $ 5500 was rendered to him as compensation.

SLIP AND FALL CASES:

Slip and fall cases give rise to liability against personal injuries. In Smt. Selvi vs state of Tamil
Nadu and others 7 a child died by falling into sewage line as a manhole was left open. Metro
supply and sewage board was held responsible and liable for payment for compensation.

In U.P Sharma vs Jabalpur corporation and other, Mr. Sharma skidded from his motorcycle
because of sand on public street. Due to this he suffered injuries. The municipal had a duty to
keep the street clean and safe for the drivers. Since the driver suffered a personal injury which
was the result of the negligent work of the municipality. The court held that the municipality
neglected their work and is bound to compensate for the injury caused.

MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE:
Medical negligence is the misconduct of a medical practitioner or doctor who does not provide
enough care resulting in breach of their duties and harming the patients. Medical negligence also
known as medical malpractice is improper, unskilled, or negligent treatment of a patient by a
physician, pharmacist, or others. Medical negligence leads to personal injury.

The liability of a hospital can be either direct or vicarious.

The followings are the examples that shall give rise to direct liability of a hospital:

a) Failure in providing safe and suitable environment for the patient

b) Improper maintenance of the hospital which cause an injury or death of the patient.

6
Montreal Tramways vs Leveille (1933)
7
Smt. selvi vs state of Tamil Nadu and others AIR 2010

6
In Pappachan v. Dr. George Moonjerly 8 it was held that “persons who run hospitals are in law
under the same duty as the humblest doctor: whenever they accept a patient for treatment, they
must use reasonable care and skill to ease him of his ailment. The hospital authorities cannot, of
course, do it by themselves; they have no ears to listen to the stethoscope, and no hands to hold
the surgeon’s scalpel. They must do it by the staff which they employ; and if their staff are
negligent in giving treatment, they are just as liable for that negligence as anyone else who
employs others to do his duties for him.’ it has been held that the state can be directly liable in
case there is a lack of proper facilities, equipment or staff and it may be vicariously liable for
negligent acts of its doctors. In a few cases, the court has even granted compensation to the
complainant paid by the government doctor whose negligence has been established.

On the contrary in Dr. M. Kochar vs Ispita Seal 9 , the National Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission (NCDRC) was confronted with the issue of failure in IVF procedure. The
complainant in the case complained of failure in IVF procedure and demanded compensation
from the Doctor on account of medical negligence. The National Commission in the case held
that “No cure/ no success is not a negligence”, Thus fastening the liability upon the treating
doctor is unjustified.

CONCLUSION:
Personal injury in tort Law is sometimes seen as something petty but sometimes very dreadful.
Throughout all the cases it can be concluded that not all personal injury is compensated even if
the tortious act caused death of a person. However, in other cases relevant damages have been
provided where the damage and act of negligence has been proved. Tort law has a great role as a
tool for personal injury and in today’s world tort has a big importance in the society as it
provides the correct legal remedy and decreases the burden of criminal procedures.

8
1994 (1) KLJ 782 (Ker. HC)

9
Date of Judgement: December 12, 2017