ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to those who have contributed to the completion
of this assignment. This project would not have been possible without the support and guidance
of several individuals.
First and foremost, I would like to thank Dr Runjhun Assistant Professor of Law, for
providing valuable insights, feedback, and encouragement throughout the assignment. Your
expertise and dedication have been instrumental in shaping the quality of this work.

Thank you all for being an integral part of this journey.

Sincerely,

Harshvardhan Singh Sisodiya

Roll No. - 22
 TABLE OF CONTENT

S.NO. Particulars Pg.No.

01 Abstract 02

02 Introduction 03

03 Vicarious Liability 03-05

04 Strict Liability 05-06

05 Absolute Liability 07

06 Joint tort teasers 07-08

07 Tort Against Person 08-09

08 Malicious Prosecution 09

09 Conclusion 09-10

1
 INTRODUCTION

Within the context of tort law, responsibility is the legal accountability imposed on one
individual for inflicting injury to another, and this accountability is defined by three
fundamental concepts: vicarious liability, strict liability, and absolute culpability.

Vicarious liability is based on the notion that one person can be held liable for the actions of
another, which is frequently seen in employer-employee interactions. Employers are held
accountable for their workers' activities while on the job, recognizing employers' responsibility
to guarantee correct conduct by those operating on their behalf.

Strict liability goes beyond the need to prove carelessness or malice, holding a person liable
for harm stemming from inherently dangerous activity. Unlike other torts, strict liability
focuses on the nature of the act and the resulting harm, eliminating the need for the injured
party to demonstrate carelessness or intentional misconduct.

Absolute liability takes strict liability to a new level, laying blame on a party regardless of fault,
intent, or negligence. This idea is especially important when dealing with dangerous drugs or
engaging in severely dangerous activities. The non-delegable responsibility to prevent harm is
characteristic of absolute liability, rendering the party participating in the action accountable
for any resulting losses.

Torts against people involve causing harm in many ways, including battery, assault, wrongful
imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. Battery is defined as purposeful and unauthorized
physical contact, whereas assault is defined as inciting fear of imminent injury. False
incarceration is the intentional and illegal restriction of someone's liberty, while malicious
prosecution happens when a lawsuit is launched without justification.

Finally, collaborative tortfeasors exist when there is teamwork to commit a tort or create
unclear harm. When many people or entities share blame for causing harm, they may be held
jointly liable for damages. This approach ensures that all persons involved in the harm are held
equally liable, allowing the victim to seek compensation from any or all of them. In tort law,
this intricate interaction of responsibility principles serves as the foundation for addressing and
correcting wrongs.

10
 VICARIOUS LIABILITY

Generally, Individuals are responsible for their wrongdoing and are not held liable for the
actions of others. However, there are times when vicarious liability may apply, implying that
one person has responsibility for the actions of another. A certain relationship between the two
parties, A and B, must exist for this responsibility to exist. Furthermore, B's improper act should
be strongly related to this relationship. Essentially, vicarious liability is based on a clear link
between the wrongful act and a defined association between individuals. Here we will discuss
vicarious liability in two cases:

1. Master and Servant Relationship

2. State Liability

Master and Servant Relationship

If a servant commits wrongful conduct while on the job, the master is held accountable. Of
course, the servant is likewise accountable. The servant's wrongful act is considered the
master's act as well.
"The doctrine of the master's liability for his servant's act is based on the maxim respondeat
superior, which means 'let the senior be liable,' and it puts the master in the same position as if
he had done the act himself." It is further supported by the maxim qui facit via alium facit per
se, which states that "he who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself."

There are two requirements for master liability -

 The servant committed a tort.

 In the course of his employment, the servant committed the tort.

In general, the principal can only be held accountable for the agent's actions if all four
conditions are met.

1. An agent was hired to conduct that specific type of act.

2. An agent act was motivated by a principled goal.
3. The principle could have predicted the agent technique.
4. The agent act occurred at an authorized location and at an authorized time of
employment.

Mistake/Fraud by Servant:

 The master-servant will be liable depending on the nature of the act where a servant
with authorized authority to execute some act on behalf of his master makes excessive
use of authority, causing loss to the plaintiff.
 The servant has an implied authority to protect his master's property.


10
State Liability

State accountability under tort law is a significant divergence from the previous concept of
sovereign immunity. Historically, states were immune from legal action, but modern legal
systems accept that governments should be held accountable for wrongdoing. This obligation
has evolved as a result of legislative and judicial developments in both England and India. In
the United Kingdom, the Crown Proceedings Act of 1947 removed the Crown's immunity,
allowing citizens to sue the government for torts committed by its agents. In India, the
Constitution establishes constitutional remedies, and courts recognize state accountability
based on common law grounds. This changing legal landscape reflects an understanding that
the state, like any other institution, must accept responsibility for its actions or omissions that
cause injury to persons. State tort liability is based on the premise that justice requires
accountability, even from sovereign entities, to ensure a fair and equitable legal system for all
citizens. In India, art.300 empowers to sue the government by the name of Union of India and
with State of (Name of State).

STRICT LIABILITY

The notion of Strict obligation in torts is often known as "No-Fault Liability," which may very
clearly describe this concept- "that liability would exist regardless of any fault." Certain
activities are inherently risky, and simply engaging in them imposes a duty on the person doing
so to compensate for any damage, regardless of carelessness on their part. The foreseeable risk
inherent in such acts justifies establishing such obligation. The House of Lords first applied
this approach in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher.

The Rylands V. Fletcher Case

It was established in 1868 by Blackburn, J.-

The person who brings on his land for his purpose and collects and keeps anything likely to
cause mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril, and if he does not, he is prima facie
answerable for all the damage which is the natural result of its escape." He cannot get out of it
by claiming that the escape was due to the plaintiff's negligence, consequences, or serious acts
or acts of God.

It is necessary to evaluate the circumstances of the case to reach this decision. In this case, the
defendant, a mill owner, had chosen specific contractors (supposedly with the necessary
expertise) to build reservoirs on his property to supply water to the mill. During the work, the
contractors discovered several old shafts on the defendant's property. Such shafts appeared to
be connected with the plaintiff's mine, but this could not be determined because the shafts
appeared to be filled with soil. As soon as the reservoirs were filled, the shafts failed, flooding
the plaintiff's mines.

The court determined that establishing such a reservoir was a risk to defendants and that if a
mishap occurred, defendants would be held accountable for such material escape.

10
Essentials
There are a few essentials in the concept of strict liability:

1. There should be a dangerous thing.

2. Escape of that dangerous thing.
3. That dangerous thing will cause damage to someone else.
4. Unnatural use of any land.

Defences to the Rule of Strict Liability

There are various defences that a person use against the rule of Strict Liability to avoid the
burden of liability:

1. That the claimant is himself at fault.

2. Can use the defence of Act of God.
3. Can use the defence of volenti non-fit injuria which means the person voluntarily or by
consent agreed to bear the loss.
4. The act of a third party is also one of the defence.
5. Defence of statutory authority.

ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, also known as the Oleum gas leak case, the theory
of absolute liability was developed in India. This is a historic decision by the Indian judiciary.
Even after independence, we have always obeyed British norms and regulations. Before the
development of this doctrine, India followed the strict liability doctrine. But the trouble with
the philosophy was that it had so many exceptions that the guilty always used one of them and
got away with the crime.

Many people died as a result of the Bhopal leaking case. There was mayhem in the city of
Bhopal after the gas leak as many people died and many people were impacted by severe
diseases that lasted for generations. As a result, the Court opted to abandon the strict liability
principle in favour of a new principle of absolute liability (strict liability - exceptions). This
rule was established by the Supreme Court, and it is significantly broader than the regulations
established by the House of Lords in the case of Ryland v. Fetcher (When a defendant is found
guilty, he is not allowed to present any defence; it is a strict liability with no exemption).

Essentials of Absolute Liability

Most of the essentials of absolute liability are same as the strict liability.

1. There should be a dangerous thing.

2. That dangerous thing must escape from the place
3. That dangerous thing’s escape causes damage to someone.
4. To hold a person accountable under this concept, the plaintiff must first demonstrate

10
 that the defendant engaged in non-natural land use and escaped the dangerous thing that
he possessed on his land, which resulted in the injury.

Unlike strict liability, the concept of absolute liability does not have any kind of defence
available to escape the burden of liability.

JOINT TORT FEASERS

Multiple individuals or entities who collaborate to perform a wrongful act or share liability for
a single tortious injury are referred to as joint tortfeasors. When two or more parties act in
concert to cause harm to a third party, they are deemed joint tortfeasors under tort law. Each
tortfeasor bears individual and group responsibility for the resulting injury.

The theory of joint and several liability is frequently applied, allowing the injured party to sue
any or all of the joint tortfeasors. In this case, the injured person has the option of seeking
compensation from a single tortfeasor or distributing the claim among all parties involved. The
notion of joint tortfeasors promotes fairness and ensures that the injured party can recover
damages from those jointly liable for the wrongful act, allowing for the expedient resolution of
legal issues.
Illustration: John and Mary work together on a construction job, and as a result of their
combined incompetence, a wall collapses, injuring a passerby named Sarah. Both John and
Mary can be held jointly liable for Sarah's injuries as joint tortfeasors. Sarah has the option of
suing one or both of them to seek restitution for the injury created by their joint wrongful act.
This exemplifies the notion of joint tortfeasors, in which numerous parties conspiring to
perform a wrongful act can be held jointly and severally accountable for the subsequent
damages.

TORT AGAINST PERSON

There are 3 types of tort against a person which we are going to explain here:

Battery: When force is used against a person in such a way that it causes physical harm to the
victim, this is referred to as battery. The use of force should be purposeful and without legal
justification. In other words, battery cannot be defined as the unintended or authorized use of
force. There are two essentials of a battery;

 There should be a use of force against a person against whom a tort is committed.
 One of the essentials is that the use of force should be intentional and without any lawful
justification.

In Stanley v. Powell, Powell, a member of a shooting party, fired at a pheasant, but the pellet
from his pistol ricocheted off a tree, injuring Stanley, another member of the party. Powell was
found not to be culpable. The defendant would be responsible if the act was willful or negligent.

Assault: Assault is defined as the wrongful apprehension of terror in the mind of another
person, causing him to suffer injury. To establish assault, no physical hurt is required.

10
 In the case of R v. S. George, a person took out a loaded gun and pointed it out to the other
person. The other individual was shocked as a result of his or her dread. The individual was
held accountable. It made no difference if the gun was loaded or unloaded. However, the
person's capacity to anticipate dread did matter. In the same way, if the pistol was pointed in
the rear and the individual was unaware of it, the act would not be considered assault.

False Imprisonment: When a person's freedom is purposely curtailed, that individual is said
to be wrongfully imprisoned. The factors for wrongful incarceration are the reason for
detention, the plaintiff's awareness of his or her confinement, and the defendant's intention.

The basic elements required to form this error are:

1. Absolute limitation on a person's liberty. It means that a person will be imprisoned fully
and there should be no place of escape.
2. It must be done without any legal reason. It means a person doesn’t have legal
jurisdiction to restrain someone’s liberty.
In Bird v. Jones, the defendant improperly enclosed a portion of the public footway, as opposed
to the carriageway, on Hammer Smith Bridge. Seats were installed, and admission to the
enclosure was restricted to those who had paid to see the rowing there. The plaintiff argued his
right to use this footpath and went over the enclosure's barrier, but was unable to proceed. He
waited there for roughly 30 minutes before filing a false imprisonment action.

It was held that there was no false imprisonment because there was no comprehensive
restriction on the plaintiff's liberty; the plaintiff was free to return or even cross the bridge
through the carriageway.

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

Malicious prosecution in tort law refers to the improper commencement of criminal,

bankruptcy, or liquidation proceedings against an individual motivated by malice and devoid
of reasonable justification or likelihood. Certain fundamental components must be met to
establish a claim of malicious prosecution:

1. False Proceedings: The defendant must have brought legal action against the plaintiff,
and these actions must be demonstrated to be fraudulent or unjustified.
2. Malicious Intent: The commencement of actions should be motivated by malice, with
no reasonable grounds or probabilities. Malice in this context denotes a conscious desire
to cause harm.
3. Favourable Outcome for Plaintiff: The legal proceedings must end in a
favourable outcome for the plaintiff, such as acquittal or the suspension of the suit. This
outcome is critical in establishing malicious prosecution.
4. Adverse Consequences: The plaintiff must show that the proceedings initiated have
harmed their liberty and reputation in society. This entails demonstrating concrete
injury or repercussions as a result of the legal activities.

10
 CONCLUSION

Finally, this assignment dives into numerous areas of tort law, delving into key ideas such as
vicarious liability, strict liability, and absolute culpability. It investigates torts committed
against individuals, such as violence, assault, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution,
and sheds light on their legal repercussions. The study also delves into the notion of joint
tortfeasors, explaining how participation in wrongful acts can result in shared accountability.

Vicarious liability, which arises from relationships such as master-servant dynamics, holds one
accountable for the actions of another, highlighting employers' duty to their employees. Strict
liability, as demonstrated by the landmark case Rylands v. Fletcher, extends responsibility for
intrinsically risky actions, whereas absolute liability, as established by M.C. Mehta v. Union of
India, imposes accountability regardless of guilt or purpose.

The section on torts against persons delves into the specifics of battery, assault, wrongful
imprisonment, and malicious prosecution, explaining the legal aspects and repercussions of
each. Finally, the concept of joint tortfeasors stresses collaborators' shared responsibility for
creating harm, emphasizing the principle of joint and several liability.

This in-depth examination emphasizes the multidimensional nature of tort law, revealing the
subtle interplay of legal concepts in righting wrongs and guaranteeing justice.

10