Law of Torts

Part A : Short Answers

1. Define Tort & Tor ous Liability

Tort:
A tort is a civil wrong or injury that is commi ed by one person against another, resul ng in harm or
damage to the vic m. It is a breach of a duty or obliga on that is owed to another person, and it can
result in physical, emo onal, or financial harm. Torts can be inten onal or uninten onal, and they can be
commi ed by individuals, companies, or organiza ons.

Tor ous Liability:

Tor ous liability refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organiza on for commi ng a tort. It is
the obliga on to compensate the vic m for the harm or damage caused by the tort.

3. Ubi Jus Ubi remedium

"Ubi jus, ibi remedium" is a La n phrase that translates to "Where there is a right, there is a remedy."
This phrase is a fundamental principle of law that suggests that for every right that is recognized by the
law, there must be a corresponding remedy or means of enforcing that right.

Examples:

1. If a person is wrongfully terminated from their job, they may have the right to seek damages or
reinstatement.

2. If a person is injured in a car accident due to another driver's negligence, they may have the right to
seek compensa on for their injuries.

3. If a person's freedom of speech is restricted by the government, they may have the right to seek
redress or compensa on through the courts.

4. Act of God/Vis Major:

An Act of God, also known as Vis Major, is an unforeseeable and unavoidable event that is beyond
human control. It is a natural disaster or catastrophe that is not caused by human ac on or negligence,
and is o en used as a defense in legal cases to avoid liability.

Examples:

1. Earthquakes, 2. Hurricanes, 3. Floods, 4. Lightning strikes, 5. Tsunamis.

 5. Ashby vs. White (1703):
Ashby vs. White is a landmark English case that established the principle that a person has a right to
vote and have their vote counted, and that any interference with this right is a viola on of their civil
rights.

6. Inevitable Accident
An inevitable accident is an event that occurs unexpectedly and without any fault or negligence on
the part of the person responsible. It is an accident that is unavoidable and could not have been
prevented by the exercise of reasonable care or cau on.

Examples:

1. Natural disasters: Earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, and other natural disasters that are beyond
human control.

2. Sudden illness: A person suffers a sudden and unexpected illness or medical condi on that causes
an accident.

3. Mechanical failure: A machine or vehicle fails unexpectedly due to a manufacturing defect or

other unforeseen circumstance.

4. Animal behavior: An animal behaves unexpectedly and causes an accident, such as a dog bi ng
someone without provoca on.

7. Plain ff the Wrong doer / Plain ff Default

The concept of "plain ff the wrongdoer" or "plain ff in default" refers to a situa on where the
plain ff, who is the party ini a ng the lawsuit, is actually the one who has commi ed a wrong or is
at fault. In such cases, the plain ff's own wrongdoing or default can bar them from recovering
damages or relief from the defendant.

8. Tor easor
A tor easor is a person who commits a tort, which is a civil wrong that causes harm or injury to
another person or their property. The term "tor easor" is o en used in legal contexts to refer to the
person who is responsible for the tor ous act or omission.

Examples:

1. A driver who runs a red light and causes an accident is a tor easor.

2. A manufacturer who produces a defec ve product that causes harm to a consumer is a tor easor.

3. A doctor who fails to diagnose a pa ent's condi on and causes harm as a result is a tor easor.

4. A property owner who fails to maintain their property and causes harm to a visitor is a tor easor.
Part B: Long Answers 10 Marks
1. Injuria Sine Damnum is ac onable but Not Damnum Sine Injuria. Discuss with
Case Law.
njuria Sine Damnum:

Injuria sine damnum is a La n phrase that means "injury without damage." It refers to a situa on
where a person's legal rights have been violated, but they have not suffered any actual damage or
harm. In such cases, the person can s ll bring a lawsuit to enforce their rights and seek relief, even if
they have not suffered any tangible harm.

Ac onability:

Injuria sine damnum is ac onable, meaning that a person can bring a lawsuit to enforce their rights,
even if they have not suffered any actual damage. This is because the law recognizes that a person's
rights can be violated, even if they have not suffered any tangible harm.

Case Law:

One of the most famous cases that illustrates the concept of injuria sine damnum is Ashby v. White
(1703). In this case, the plain ff, Ashby, was a qualified voter who was prevented from vo ng in an
elec on by the defendant, White, who was the returning officer. Although Ashby did not suffer any
actual damage, the court held that he had a right to vote and that White's ac ons had violated that
right. The court awarded Ashby damages, even though he had not suffered any tangible harm.

Another case that illustrates the concept of injuria sine damnum is Bourgoin v. Vancouver (1916). In
this case, the plain ff, Bourgoin, was a property owner who was prevented from accessing his
property by the defendant, the City of Vancouver, which had built a road that blocked his access.
Although Bourgoin did not suffer any actual damage, the court held that the city's ac ons had
violated his right to access his property. The court awarded Bourgoin damages, even though he had
not suffered any tangible harm.

Damnum Sine Injuria:

Damnum sine injuria, on the other hand, is a La n phrase that means "damage without injury." It
refers to a situa on where a person has suffered actual damage or harm, but their legal rights have
not been violated. In such cases, the person cannot bring a lawsuit to enforce their rights, because
they have not suffered any injury to their legal rights.

Not Ac onable:

Damnum sine injuria is not ac onable, meaning that a person cannot bring a lawsuit to enforce their
rights, even if they have suffered actual damage. This is because the law requires that a person's
legal rights must be violated in order for them to bring a lawsuit.
 Case Law:

One of the most famous cases that illustrates the concept of damnum sine injuria is Gloucester
Grammar School v. Duke of Norfolk (1711). In this case, the plain ff, the Gloucester Grammar School,
had suffered actual damage to its property due to the defendant's ac ons. However, the court held
that the plain ff had not suffered any injury to its legal rights, because the defendant's ac ons were
lawful. The court dismissed the plain ff's lawsuit, because it had not suffered any injury to its legal
rights.

Another case that illustrates the concept of damnum sine injuria is Allen v. Flood (1898). In this case,
the plain ff, Allen, had suffered actual damage to his business due to the defendant's ac ons.
However, the court held that the plain ff had not suffered any injury to his legal rights, because the
defendant's ac ons were lawful. The court dismissed the plain ff's lawsuit, because it had not
suffered any injury to its legal rights.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, injuria sine damnum is ac onable, meaning that a person can bring a lawsuit to
enforce their rights, even if they have not suffered any actual damage. On the other hand, damnum
sine injuria is not ac onable, meaning that a person cannot bring a lawsuit to enforce their rights,
even if they have suffered actual damage. The case law illustrates the importance of dis nguishing
between these two concepts, and demonstrates that the law requires that a person's legal rights
must be violated in order for them to bring a lawsuit.

2. Discuss Volen non fit Injuria is a general defence in ac on for Tor ous Liability ? with the
help of Discussed Case Law
Volen non fit Injuria:

Volen non fit injuria is a La n phrase that means "no injury is done to a willing person." It is a
defense in tort law that can be raised by a defendant to argue that the plain ff had voluntarily
assumed the risk of harm or injury, and therefore, the defendant is not liable for the harm or injury
caused.

General Defense:

Volen non fit injuria is a general defense in ac ons for tor ous liability, as it can be applied to a wide
range of situa ons where the plain ff has voluntarily assumed the risk of harm or injury. This defense is
o en raised in cases where the plain ff has engaged in a hazardous ac vity or has taken a risk that is
inherent in the ac vity.

Elements:

To establish the defense of volen non fit injuria, the defendant must prove the following elements:

1. The plain ff had knowledge of the risk: The plain ff must have been aware of the risk of harm or
injury associated with the ac vity or situa on.
2. The plain ff voluntarily assumed the risk: The plain ff must have voluntarily taken on the risk of
harm or injury, either by express agreement or by implied consent.

3. The risk was inherent in the ac vity: The risk of harm or injury must have been inherent in the
ac vity or situa on, and not caused by the defendant's negligence or wrongdoing.

Case Law:

One of the most famous cases that illustrates the defense of volen non fit injuria is the case of
Dann v. Hamilton (1939). In this case, the plain ff, Dann, was a passenger in a car driven by the
defendant, Hamilton. Dann knew that Hamilton was a reckless driver, but he s ll chose to ride with
him. When Hamilton lost control of the car and crashed, Dann was injured. The court held that Dann
had voluntarily assumed the risk of harm by riding with Hamilton, and therefore, Hamilton was not
liable for Dann's injuries.

Another case that illustrates the defense of volen non fit injuria is Hyde v. White (1952). In this
case, the plain ff, Hyde, was a spectator at a boxing match. He was injured when a boxer was thrown
out of the ring and landed on him. The court held that Hyde had voluntarily assumed the risk of
harm by a ending the boxing match, and therefore, the defendant was not liable for his injuries.

Types of Volen :

There are two types of volen non fit injuria:

1. Express Volen : This type of volen occurs when the plain ff has explicitly agreed to assume the
risk of harm or injury.

2. Implied Volen : This type of volen occurs when the plain ff has implicitly assumed the risk of
harm or injury by their ac ons or behavior.

Examples:

1. A person who par cipates in a contact sport, such as football or hockey, assumes the risk of injury
and cannot sue the other players or the organizers of the game for damages.

2. A person who rides a rollercoaster or other amusement park ride assumes the risk of injury and
cannot sue the park owners or operators for damages.

3. A person who engages in a hazardous ac vity, such as skydiving or rock climbing, assumes the risk
of injury and cannot sue the instructors or equipment providers for damages.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, volen non fit injuria is a general defense in ac ons for tor ous liability that can be
raised by a defendant to argue that the plain ff had voluntarily assumed the risk of harm or injury.
The defense requires that the plain ff had knowledge of the risk, voluntarily assumed the risk, and
that the risk was inherent in the ac vity. The case law illustrates the applica on of this defense in
various situa ons, and highlights the importance of considering the plain ff's assump on of risk
when determining liability.
Part C
1.A person is crossing through the road died due to falling of the Clock Tower
which is under the Maintenance of District Municipality. Discuss the Liability of
Municipality.
1. Facts:
A person was crossing the road when the Clock Tower, which is under the maintenance of the District
Municipality, fell and caused their death. The Clock Tower was a public structure, and the municipality
was responsible for its maintenance and upkeep.

2. Issues:
The issues in this case are:

- Whether the municipality is liable for the death of the person caused by the falling of the Clock Tower?

- Whether the municipality breached its duty of care to the public by failing to properly maintain the
Clock Tower?

- Whether the person's death was a result of the municipality's negligence or was it an unforeseeable
accident?

3. Binding Precedent:
The binding precedent in this case is the concept of "duty of care" and "negligence" as established in the
case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932). In this case, the House of Lords established that a duty of care is
owed to anyone who could be reasonably foreseen to be affected by one's ac ons. The court also
established that negligence is the failure to exercise reasonable care to prevent harm to others.

4. Explana on of Issues:
The issues in this case can be explained as follows:

- The municipality has a duty of care to the public to ensure that public structures, such as the Clock
Tower, are safe and secure.

- The municipality's failure to properly maintain the Clock Tower may be considered a breach of its duty
of care, as it could have reasonably foreseen that the Clock Tower could collapse and cause harm to the
public.

- The person's death was a direct result of the Clock Tower's collapse, and it is likely that the
municipality's negligence contributed to the accident.

5. Provision of Law:
The relevant provisions of law in this case are:
- Indian Law: The Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) provide for the liability of
public authori es, such as municipali es, for negligence and breach of duty of care.

- Tort Law: The law of torts provides for the liability of individuals and organiza ons for negligence,
breach of duty of care, and other forms of wrongdoing.

- Municipal Laws: The Municipali es Act and other local laws provide for the powers and responsibili es
of municipali es, including the maintenance of public structures and the provision of public services.

6. Judgment:
Based on the facts and the law, it is likely that the municipality would be held liable for the death of the
person caused by the falling of the Clock Tower. The municipality's failure to properly maintain the Clock
Tower was a breach of its duty of care to the public, and its negligence contributed to the accident. The
court would likely award damages to the person's family or estate, taking into account the municipality's
degree of fault and the severity of the harm caused.

7. Conclusion:
In conclusion, the municipality is likely to be held liable for the death of the person caused by the falling
of the Clock Tower. The municipality's failure to properly maintain the Clock Tower was a breach of its
duty of care to the public, and its negligence contributed to the accident. The court would likely award
damages to the person's family or estate, taking into account the municipality's degree of fault and the
severity of the harm caused. This case highlights the importance of public authori es, such as
municipali es, taking their responsibili es seriously and ensuring that public structures are safe and
secure for the public.