LAW OF TORTS AND ITS APPLICABILTY IN PAKISTAN:

A COMPARATIVE AND ANALYTICAL STUDY

SUBMITTED BY

JAMAL MUJTABA
Roll No. 356 Section B
BS Law 10th Semester
Session 2019 – 2024

SUPERVISED BY
Mr. NADEEM
FARID

Associate Professor Law College

LAW COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR
 LAW OF TORTS AND ITS APPLICABILTY IN PAKISTAN: A
COMPARATIVE AND ANALYTICAL STUDY

The research thesis is submitted to the University of Peshawar, Pakistan, in the partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Law (BS Law)

SUBMITTED BY
JAMAL MUJTABA
Roll No. 356 Section B
BS Law 10th Semester
Session 2019 – 2024

SUPERVISED BY
Mr. Nadeem Farid
Associate Professor Law College

LAW COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY OF
PESHAWAR

i
 LAW OF TORTS AND ITS APPLICABILTY IN PAKISTAN: A
COMPARATIVE AND ANALYTICAL STUDY

By
Jamal Mujtaba

The research thesis is submitted to the University of Peshawar, Pakistan, in the partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Law (BS Law)

Approved by:

Supervisor:

Dr. Nadeem Farid

Assist. Professor Law
College, University of
Peshawar

External Examiner

Principal:
Dr. Inayatullah Khan
Law College
University of Peshawar

LAW COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY OF
PESHAWAR SESSION 2019 –
2024
ii
 DECLARATION

I, Jamal Mujtaba, declare that the work presented in this paper is my original work. I
also declare that neither this work nor any part thereof has been submitted for the award of
any degree from any institution.

Jamal Mujtaba
BS Law Student
Law College
University of Peshawar

iii
 Table of Contents

AKNOWLEDGMENT.............................................................................................................1

ABSTRACT..............................................................................................................................2

CHAPTER 1:............................................................................................................................3

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND............................................................................3

1.1 HISTORICAL AND LEGAL FOUNDATIONS...........................................................................3

1.2 CURRENT LEGAL LANDSCAPE..........................................................................................3
1.3 SYSTEMIC CHALLENGES...................................................................................................3
1.4 CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS............................................................................................4
1.5 COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES...........................................................................................4
1.6 ACADEMIC AND LEGAL RELEVANCE................................................................................4
1.7 PROBLEM STATEMENT......................................................................................................4
1.8 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY...................................................................................................5
1.9 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES.....................................................................................................5
1.10 RESEARCH QUESTIONS....................................................................................................5
1.11 JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY.........................................................................................5
1.12 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY............................................................................................6
1.13 STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY.............................................................................................6

CHAPTER 2:............................................................................................................................7

LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................................7

2.1 INTRODUCTION TO LAW OF TORT.....................................................................................7

2.2 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF LAW OF TORT.................................................................8
2.3 COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES IN LAW OF TORT................................................................9
2.3.1 Law of tort in the United States................................................................................9
2.3.2 Law of tort in the United Kingdom...........................................................................9
2.3.3 Law of tort in India: Progress and Reforms...........................................................10
2.3.4 Lessons from Comparative Jurisdictions for Pakistan...........................................10
2.4 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS IN LAW OF TORT..............................................................11
2.4.1 Theories of Liability: Negligence, Strict Liability, and Vicarious Liability............11
2.4.2 Philosophical and Legal Justifications for Law of tort...........................................11
2.4.3 Role of Precedent and Statutory Interpretation in Tort Cases...............................12

iv
 2.5 LAW OF TORT IN THE PAKISTANI CONTEXT....................................................................12
2.5.1 Evolution and Current Status of Law of tort in Pakistan........................................13
2.5.2 Key Statutes, Judicial Precedents, and Doctrines Governing Law of tort.............13
2.5.3 Challenges in the Development of Law of tort in Pakistan.....................................14
2.5.4 Relationship Between Civil Law and Traditional Dispute Mechanisms.................14
2.6 KEY CASES AND STATUTES IN PAKISTANI LAW OF TORT...............................................15
2.6.1 Review of Landmark Tort Cases in Pakistan..........................................................15
2.6.2 Analysis of Statutory Frameworks: Gaps and Limitations.....................................15
2.6.3 The Role of the Judiciary in Shaping Law of tort...................................................16
2.7 SYSTEMIC ISSUES IN THE APPLICATION OF LAW OF TORT.............................................16
2.7.1 The Role of Judicial Precedents and Backlogs in Tort Litigation..........................16
2.7.2 Immunities of Public Officials and Government Accountability.............................17
2.7.3 Access to Justice: Cultural and Economic Barriers to Tort Claims.......................17
2.8 EMERGING TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS......................................................................18
2.8.1 Reform Movements in Pakistan: Legal Activism and Law of tort..........................18
2.8.2 Global Influences on Pakistani Law of tort Development......................................18
2.8.3 Future Directions for Law of tort in Pakistan........................................................19
2.9 CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................20
2.9.1 Synthesis of Reviewed Literature............................................................................20
2.9.2 Key Findings and Gaps in Current Research.........................................................20

CHAPTER 3:..........................................................................................................................22

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................22

3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN..........................................................................................................22

3.2 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS................................................................................................23
3.2.1 Scope.......................................................................................................................23
3.2.2 Limitations...............................................................................................................23
3.3 DATA COLLECTION METHODS.........................................................................................24
3.4 DATA ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES..........................................................................................24
3.5 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS.............................................................................................25

CHAPTER 4:..........................................................................................................................26

APPLICABILITY OF LAW OF TORT IN PAKISTAN....................................................26

4.1 INTRODUCTION TO LAW OF TORT IN PAKISTAN..............................................................26

4.2 SCOPE OF LAW OF TORT IN PAKISTAN............................................................................27

v
 4.2.1 Negligence in Pakistan............................................................................................27
4.2.2 Defamation and Privacy.........................................................................................28
4.2.3 Consumer Protection and Environmental Torts.....................................................28
4.2.4 Government Immunity and Public Law Torts.........................................................29
4.3 JUDICIAL ROLE IN LAW OF TORT....................................................................................29
4.4 CHALLENGES TO THE APPLICABILITY OF LAW OF TORT................................................30
4.4.1 Judicial Inefficiencies and Backlogs.......................................................................30
4.4.2 Government Immunity and Lack of Accountability.................................................31
4.4.3 Public Awareness and Access to Justice.................................................................31
4.4.4 Cultural Reliance on Traditional Dispute Resolution Mechanisms........................32
4.5 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS................................................................................................32
4.5.1 Comparing Law of tort in Pakistan with Other Jurisdictions (U.S., U.K., India). .32
4.5.2 Lessons from Indian Law of tort: Public Interest Litigations and State
Accountability
..........................................................................................................................................34
4.5.3 Adopting International Best Practices for Tort Reform in Pakistan.......................35
4.6 PROPOSED REFORMS FOR ENHANCING LAW OF TORT IN PAKISTAN..............................36
4.6.1 Codification of Law of tort......................................................................................36
4.6.2 Introduction of Public Interest Litigation for Tort Claims.....................................36
4.6.3 Judicial Training and Specialization in Law of tort...............................................37
4.6.4 Expanding Tort Remedies and Introducing Punitive Damages..............................37
4.6.5 Promotion of Insurance Coverage for Tort Claims................................................37
4.6.6 Raising Public Awareness of Tortious Rights.........................................................38
4.7 CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................38

CHAPTER 5:..........................................................................................................................40

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................40

5.1 SYNTHESIS OF KEY FINDINGS.........................................................................................40

5.2 IMPLICATIONS..................................................................................................................40
5.3 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................41
5.4 FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS.....................................................................................42
5.5 CONCLUSIVE THOUGHTS.................................................................................................43

REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................44

vi
 AKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Mr. Nadeem Farid,

Associate Professor at the Law College, University of Peshawar, for his unwavering support
and invaluable guidance throughout this research project. His kindness, patience, and detailed
feedback in reviewing and refining my thesis have been truly appreciated. I am sincerely
thankful for his encouragement and assistance.

I also wish to extend a special thanks to Dr. Inayatullah Khan, Associate Professor
and Principal of Law College, University of Peshawar, along with the esteemed faculty
members of the college. Their support and the opportunity to pursue this research have been
instrumental in its completion.

Moreover, I am very grateful to my fellow college mates for their assistance and
encouragement, especially in helping me meet the deadlines and complete this research in a
timely manner.

My heartfelt thanks go out to everyone who has contributed to the success of this work.

JAMAL MUJTABA

1
 ABSTRACT

The study investigates the current state and challenges of Law of tort in Pakistan. Rooted in
the English common law system inherited during colonial times, Pakistan's Law of tort
remains underdeveloped, relying heavily on judicial precedents rather than statutory
codification. This research critically compares Pakistan’s tort system with that of the U.S.,
U.K., and India, highlighting gaps in legal frameworks, such as the lack of clear guidelines
on negligence, defamation, and public interest litigation. The findings suggest that judicial
inefficiencies, sovereign immunity, and public unawareness about Law of tort severely
hinder its application. The study recommends several reforms, including codifying Law of
tort, narrowing the scope of sovereign immunity, introducing public interest litigation, and
expanding remedies like punitive damages to deter wrongful conduct. Lessons from India’s
success with public interest litigation and the comprehensive statutory reforms in the U.S.
and U.K. serve as key reference points. The research concludes by emphasizing the need for
legal reforms and judicial modernization to ensure greater accountability and access to justice
in Pakistan.

2
Chapter 1:

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The law of torts, integral to the civil law framework, provides mechanisms through
which individuals can seek redress for civil wrongs committed against them. In Pakistan, the
scope and efficacy of Law of tort have been notably inconsistent, highlighting a complex
interplay of historical, legal, and cultural factors that warrant a deeper investigation and
understanding.

1.1 Historical and Legal Foundations

Law of tort in Pakistan inherits its principal characteristics from the English common law
system, introduced during the colonial era. The British legal framework was adapted to the
local conditions of the Indian subcontinent, which included what is today Pakistan. Post-
partition, Pakistan inherited this legal system, which was not originally designed to cater to
the local socio-legal environment, thus creating a foundation that has both facilitated and
hindered the development of various laws, including those governing torts (Jalali, 2017).

1.2 Current Legal Landscape

Unlike jurisdictions like the United States where Law of tort is extensively codified, Pakistan
relies heavily on judicial precedents within an uncodified framework that remains
underdeveloped. The Pakistani tort system is characterized by a sparse amount of case law
and an over-reliance on outdated statutes that have not evolved with the changing dynamics
of Pakistani society (Farrukh, 2022).

1.3 Systemic Challenges

The administration of Law of tort in Pakistan is hampered by several systemic issues. Firstly,
the judiciary faces severe backlogs and inefficiencies, which impede the timely resolution of
tort cases. This is exacerbated by a lack of resources and a judicial inclination towards more
pressing criminal and constitutional matters . Furthermore (Yasin, 2015), the existing legal
provisions offer broad immunities to government officials, restricting claims against public
officers and thus limiting accountability (Gondal, 2023).

3
1.4 Cultural Considerations

Culturally, there is a preference for resolving disputes through traditional and community-
based mechanisms like the panchayat or jirga systems. These systems often prioritize
reconciliation over legal redress, which can undermine the enforcement of formal legal rights
and the development of a robust legal system that includes Law of tort (Khurshid, 2022).

1.5 Comparative Perspectives

In comparison, countries like India have made significant progress in developing their Law of
torts, particularly in areas such as negligence and public nuisance. India has also made strides
in reducing the immunity of state officials, thus allowing for greater accountability and
providing citizens with avenues for redress against the state (Karthibun, 2023). Such
comparisons highlight both the potential and the challenges for Pakistan in modernizing its
Law of tort framework.

1.6 Academic and Legal Relevance

The state of Law of tort in Pakistan is not just of academic interest but of practical
importance. A well-developed Law of tort can serve as a crucial mechanism for safeguarding
rights and enforcing liabilities in personal, professional, and commercial relationships. It also
acts as a deterrent against the commission of civil wrongs by establishing clear legal
consequences (Farrukh, 2022).

The development of Law of tort in Pakistan represents a critical area for legal reform. It
requires not only the modernization of laws to better align with the socio-economic realities
of Pakistan but also a cultural shift towards greater reliance on formal legal mechanisms.
Enhancing the scope and effectiveness of Law of tort in Pakistan is essential for the
protection of individual rights and the fostering of a more just society. This study aims to
contribute towards this goal by providing a comparative analysis that can inform policy and
legal reforms (Hasan, 2011).

1.7 Problem Statement

The law of torts in Pakistan, while crucial for addressing civil wrongs, remains largely
underdeveloped and inconsistently applied compared to its potential and the development

4
observed in other common law jurisdictions. This inconsistency stems from an array of

5
challenges, including the absence of comprehensive codification, outdated legislative
frameworks, and cultural reliance on non-judicial dispute resolution methods. These factors
severely limit the effectiveness and reach of Law of tort in providing adequate remedies and
holding individuals and state actors accountable for civil wrongs.

1.8 Purpose of the Study

This study aims to critically assess and illuminate the complexities and deficiencies of the
Law of tort framework in Pakistan by conducting a comparative analysis with other common
law jurisdictions, notably the U.S., U.K., and India. Through this comparative lens, the study
seeks to identify and propose substantive legal reforms and best practices that could be
adopted in Pakistan. These reforms aim to enhance the applicability, effectiveness, and
responsiveness of Law of tort, thereby improving the protection of individual rights and
ensuring more equitable and effective justice delivery in cases involving tortious acts.

1.9 Research Objectives

1. To critically evaluate the current legal framework and application of Law of tort in
Pakistan.
2. To compare Pakistan’s Law of tort with those of other jurisdictions to identify best
practices and areas for improvement

1.10 Research Questions

Q1: What are the main components and effectiveness of the Law of tort framework in
Pakistan? Q2: How does the application of Law of tort in Pakistan compare to its
application in other countries such as the U.S., U.K., and India?

1.11 Justification of the Study

This study is essential as it addresses the critical gaps in the application and development of
Law of tort in Pakistan. By comparing Law of tort in Pakistan with that in other common law
jurisdictions, the research aims to uncover best practices and recommend reforms that could
enhance legal protections and accountability in Pakistan. This is particularly important for

6
improving the responsiveness of the legal system to civil wrongs and ensuring justice for
individuals affected by such wrongs.

1.12 Research Methodology

The methodology for this research will incorporate a comparative study and legal analysis:

 Legal Analysis: This will entail a comprehensive examination of the current statutes,
regulations, and court decisions related to Law of tort in Pakistan. It will focus on
understanding how these legal instruments operate within the Pakistani legal system and
their effectiveness in addressing tort claims.
 Comparative Study: This involves a detailed comparison of the legal frameworks, case
laws, and implementations of Law of tort in Pakistan with those in selected jurisdictions
like the U.S., U.K., and India. The goal is to identify successful practices that could be
adapted to the Pakistani context.

By integrating these methodologies, the study aims to provide a thorough understanding of

Law of tort’s current state in Pakistan and actionable insights for enhancing its framework
and application.

1.13 Structure of the study

The study organized on the pattern of the following five chapters:

Chapter 1 Introduction & Background.
Chapter 2 Literature Review.
Chapter 3 Research Methodology.
Chapter 4 Applicability of Law of tort in Pakistan.
Chapter 5 Conclusion & Recommendations.
References.

7
Chapter 2:

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction to Law of tort

Law of tort, a critical component of the legal framework in many jurisdictions, serves to
address civil wrongs and provide remedies for individuals harmed by the actions or
omissions of others. Its significance is underscored by its role in promoting accountability
and deterring harmful behaviour, thus fostering a safer society. Globally, Law of tort has
evolved through various legal traditions, particularly within common law jurisdictions, where
it has adapted to meet the changing needs of society and the complexities of modern life
(Nolan, 2017; Brennan, 2022). Historically, Law of tort can be traced back to early forms of
legal systems where wrongs were addressed through personal retribution or compensation.
The transition to a more structured approach began with the establishment of common law
principles, particularly in England, where the development of negligence as a distinct
category of tort emerged in the 18th century. This evolution marked a significant shift from
strict liability to a fault-based system, emphasizing the need for a breach of duty to establish
liability (Nolan, 2017; Brennan, 2022). The introduction of landmark cases, such as
Donoghue v. Stevenson, further solidified the principles of duty of care and foreseeability,
which continue to underpin Law of tort today (Brennan, 2022).
In comparative perspectives, Law of tort varies significantly across jurisdictions, reflecting
cultural, social, and economic factors. For instance, while common law systems emphasize
individual rights and remedies through litigation, civil law jurisdictions often incorporate
statutory frameworks that guide tortious claims and remedies. This divergence highlights the
adaptability of Law of tort in addressing local needs while maintaining core principles of
justice and accountability (Khong & Yeh, 2021; García-Ripoll, 2015). The interplay between
statutory law and common law also illustrates how legislative changes can influence Law of
tort's evolution, as seen in various reforms aimed at addressing emerging societal issues, such
as medical malpractice and product liability (Galasso & Luo, 2017; Giliker, 2014).
The theoretical frameworks underpinning Law of tort are diverse, encompassing various
schools of thought, including corrective justice, economic analysis, and social responsibility.
Corrective justice emphasizes the moral obligation to rectify wrongs and restore balance
between parties, while economic theories focus on efficiency and the allocation of resources

8
to minimize harm (Arlen, 2017; Hylton, 2016). These frameworks provide a foundation for
understanding the objectives of Law of tort, which include deterrence, compensation, and the
promotion of social welfare (Arlen, 2017).

2.2 Historical Development of Law of tort

The historical development of Law of tort is deeply rooted in the English common law
system, which has significantly influenced legal frameworks across the globe, including
South Asia. The origins of Law of tort can be traced back to medieval England, where the
legal system began to evolve from a focus on criminal acts to include civil wrongs. Early
Law of tort was characterized by a series of writs that allowed individuals to seek redress for
personal injuries and property damage. The most notable among these was the writ of
trespass, which laid the foundation for modern tort principles by allowing individuals to
claim damages for wrongful acts committed against them (Khong & Yeh, 2021). Over time,
the development of negligence as a distinct category within Law of tort marked a pivotal
shift, emphasizing the importance of duty of care and the need for a breach of that duty to
establish liability (Khong & Yeh, 2021; Witting, 2021). The influence of colonial rule on
Law of tort in South Asia, particularly in Pakistan, is significant. The British colonial
administration introduced English legal principles, including Law of tort, into the Indian
subcontinent during the 19th century. This imposition of a foreign legal system led to the
establishment of a hybrid legal framework that combined indigenous practices with English
common law. Consequently, the principles of Law of tort were adapted to fit the socio-
cultural context of South Asia, resulting in unique interpretations and applications of tortious
liability (Bocharov, 2021; Terwindt et al., 2018). The colonial legacy is evident in the legal
statutes and case law that continue to govern tort claims in Pakistan today, reflecting a blend
of traditional and colonial legal influences.
Following the partition of India in 1947, Pakistan inherited the legal framework established
during the colonial period. The post-colonial development of Law of tort in Pakistan has been
marked by attempts to reform and adapt these inherited principles to better align with local
needs and values. The legal landscape has evolved through various legislative measures and
judicial interpretations, addressing emerging issues such as consumer protection, medical
malpractice, and environmental liability (Hall, 2021). However, the application of Law of tort
in Pakistan remains fraught with challenges, including systemic issues such as limited access
to justice, inadequate legal infrastructure, and a lack of public awareness regarding tortious
rights and remedies (Witting, 2021; Wagner, 2017).

9
2.3 Comparative Perspectives in Law of tort

The comparative study of Law of tort reveals significant differences and similarities across
various jurisdictions, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and India.
Understanding these differences is crucial for analysing the applicability of Law of tort in
Pakistan and identifying potential reforms that could enhance its effectiveness.

2.3.1 Law of tort in the United States

In the United States, Law of tort is characterized by a decentralized system where each state
has the authority to develop its own Law of torts, leading to a diverse legal landscape. The
American tort system is heavily influenced by principles of negligence, with a strong
emphasis on compensatory damages for personal injuries. The doctrine of "negligence per se"
allows plaintiffs to establish a breach of duty by demonstrating that the defendant violated a
statute designed to protect a specific class of individuals (Halliday et al., 2012). Moreover,
the U.S. tort system has seen significant reforms aimed at curbing perceived abuses, such as
the introduction of caps on damages in medical malpractice cases and the implementation of
"loser pays" rules in certain jurisdictions (Galasso & Luo, 2016). These reforms have sparked
ongoing debates about their impact on access to justice and the deterrence of harmful
behaviour.
The role of insurance in the U.S. tort system cannot be overstated, as it serves as a
mechanism for compensating victims while also influencing the behaviour of potential tort
feasors. Insurers often play a pivotal role in the settlement of claims, which can lead to
concerns about the fairness of outcomes for plaintiffs (Asmat & Tennyson, 2013; Lewis,
2011). The interaction between Law of tort and insurance has been the subject of extensive
research, highlighting the complexities of liability and the challenges faced by claimants in
navigating the system (Baker, 2010).

2.3.2 Law of tort in the United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, Law of tort has evolved through a combination of common law
principles and statutory reforms. The UK system places a strong emphasis on the concept of
duty of care, particularly in negligence cases, which was notably shaped by the landmark
case of Donoghue
v. Stevenson (Witting, 2021). The UK's approach to Law of tort also includes a focus on
public policy considerations, which can influence judicial decisions and the development of
legal doctrines (Bell, 2021).

10
Recent reforms in the UK have addressed issues such as the rising costs of litigation and the
need for greater access to justice. The introduction of the Jackson Reforms aimed to reduce
the costs associated with personal injury claims and encourage early settlement (Halliday et
al., 2012). Additionally, the UK's legal framework has been influenced by European Union
directives, particularly in areas such as product liability and environmental harm, which have
introduced new standards for accountability and compensation (Giliker, 2018).

2.3.3 Law of tort in India: Progress and Reforms

India's Law of tort system has been significantly shaped by its colonial past, inheriting
principles from English common law while also adapting to local contexts. The Indian legal
framework has seen progressive developments, particularly in the area of public interest
litigation (PIL), which has expanded access to justice for marginalized communities
(Bocharov, 2021). The Supreme Court of India has played a crucial role in interpreting Law
of tort to address social injustices, often using tort principles to enforce fundamental rights
(Terwindt et al., 2018).
Recent reforms in India have focused on enhancing consumer protection and addressing
issues related to medical negligence and environmental liability. The Consumer Protection
Act of 2019 introduced mechanisms for expediting claims and improving compensation for
consumers harmed by defective goods and services (Hall, 2021). However, challenges
remain, including the need for greater public awareness of tort rights and the complexities of
navigating the legal system (Wagner, 2017).

2.3.4 Lessons from Comparative Jurisdictions for Pakistan

The comparative analysis of Law of tort in the United States, the United Kingdom, and India
offers valuable insights for Pakistan as it seeks to reform its tort system. One key lesson is the
importance of establishing clear standards for duty of care and negligence, which can
enhance predictability and fairness in tort claims. Additionally, the role of insurance in
facilitating compensation and influencing behavior should be carefully considered in the
context of Pakistan's legal framework (Asmat & Tennyson, 2013; Lewis, 2011).
Moreover, the experiences of India in expanding access to justice through public interest
litigation could serve as a model for Pakistan, particularly in addressing systemic issues that
hinder the effective application of Law of tort. The need for legislative reforms that align tort
principles with contemporary societal challenges, such as consumer protection and
environmental accountability, is also evident from the comparative study (Hall, 2021;

11
Wagner, 2017).

12
2.4 Theoretical Frameworks in Law of tort

The theoretical frameworks underpinning Law of tort are essential for understanding its
principles, applications, and implications. These frameworks encompass various theories of
liability, philosophical justifications, and the role of precedent and statutory interpretation in
shaping Law of tort. This section explored these dimensions, focusing on negligence, strict
liability, and vicarious liability, as well as the broader philosophical and legal justifications
for Law of tort.

2.4.1 Theories of Liability: Negligence, Strict Liability, and Vicarious Liability

Negligence is perhaps the most prominent theory of liability within Law of tort, requiring the
establishment of a duty of care, a breach of that duty, causation, and resultant damages. The
landmark case of Donoghue v. Stevenson established the foundational principles of
negligence, emphasizing the importance of foreseeability and the reasonable person standard
in determining liability Halliday et al. (2012). This framework allows individuals to seek
compensation for harm caused by the negligent actions of others, thereby promoting
accountability and encouraging individuals to exercise reasonable care in their conduct.
In contrast, strict liability imposes liability without the need to prove fault or negligence. This
theory is often applied in cases involving inherently dangerous activities or defective
products, where the focus is on the nature of the activity rather than the conduct of the
defendant (Jadalhaq & Alqodsi, 2020). The rationale behind strict liability is to ensure that
those who engage in risky activities bear the costs associated with any harm that results,
thereby incentivizing safer practices and protecting potential victims (Stanton, 2013).
Vicarious liability, on the other hand, holds one party liable for the tortious acts of another,
typically in employer-employee relationships. This doctrine recognizes that employers should
be responsible for the actions of their employees when those actions occur within the scope
of employment, thereby promoting accountability within organizational structures (Lin,
2023).

2.4.2 Philosophical and Legal Justifications for Law of tort

The philosophical underpinnings of Law of tort are diverse, with various theories advocating
for different justifications of liability. One prominent perspective is the corrective justice
theory, which posits that Law of tort serves to rectify wrongs and restore balance between
parties. This theory emphasizes the moral obligation to compensate victims for harm caused
by others, thereby reinforcing social norms and promoting justice (Bell, 2021). Conversely,

13
the economic analysis of Law of tort focuses on efficiency and the allocation of resources,
arguing that Law of tort should minimize societal costs associated with accidents and injuries
(Galasso & Luo, 2017).

14
This perspective suggests that liability rules should incentivize individuals and organizations
to take precautions against harm, thereby reducing the overall incidence of accidents.
Additionally, the social responsibility theory posits that Law of tort should reflect societal
values and expectations regarding behaviour. This theory emphasizes the role of Law of tort
in shaping conduct and promoting social welfare, suggesting that legal standards should
evolve in response to changing societal norms and expectations (Khong & Yeh, 2021). The
interplay between these philosophical perspectives highlights the complexity of Law of tort
and the various objectives it seeks to achieve, including deterrence, compensation, and the
promotion of social justice.

2.4.3 Role of Precedent and Statutory Interpretation in Tort Cases

The role of precedent in Law of tort is critical, as it provides a framework for consistency and
predictability in legal decision-making. Courts rely on established case law to guide their
interpretations of tort principles, ensuring that similar cases are treated similarly. This
reliance on precedent not only promotes stability in the legal system but also allows for the
gradual evolution of Law of tort as societal values and norms change (Koko & Nkemjika,
2021). The doctrine of stare decisis, which mandates that lower courts follow the decisions of
higher courts, reinforces this principle and contributes to the development of a coherent body
of Law of tort.
Statutory interpretation also plays a significant role in tort cases, particularly in jurisdictions
where legislative frameworks govern specific areas of Law of tort. Courts are tasked with
interpreting statutes to determine their applicability and scope, often grappling with
ambiguities and conflicting provisions (Faure & Peeters, 2019). This process can
significantly influence the outcomes of tort cases, as courts seek to balance the intent of the
legislature with the principles of justice and fairness. The interaction between statutory law
and common law principles further complicates the landscape of Law of tort, as courts
navigate the interplay between legislative mandates and established judicial precedents
(Aytac, 2018).

2.5 Law of tort in the Pakistani Context

The evolution of Law of tort in Pakistan reflects a complex interplay of historical, cultural,
and legal factors that have shaped its current status. This section examines the development
of Law of tort in Pakistan, key statutes and judicial precedents governing it, the challenges
faced in its application, and the relationship between civil law and traditional dispute
15
resolution mechanisms such as Panchayat and Jirga.

16
2.5.1 Evolution and Current Status of Law of tort in Pakistan
Law of tort in Pakistan has its roots in the British colonial legal system, which introduced
English common law principles to the Indian subcontinent. Following the partition in 1947,
Pakistan inherited this legal framework, including the laws governing torts. The primary
statutes relevant to Law of tort include the Pakistan Penal Code (1860), the Civil Procedure
Code (1908), and various local laws that address specific tortious actions such as defamation
and negligence (Wasim, 2019). Over the years, the judiciary has played a pivotal role in
interpreting these laws, leading to the development of a body of case law that reflects the
unique socio-legal context of Pakistan.
Currently, Law of tort in Pakistan is characterized by a blend of common law principles and
statutory provisions. The judiciary has expanded the scope of Law of tort through landmark
rulings that have addressed issues such as medical negligence, consumer protection, and
environmental liability. For instance, in the case of Abdul Sattar v. Government of Sindh,
the court recognized the right to compensation for victims of negligence, thereby reinforcing
the principles of accountability and justice (Wasim, 2019). However, the application of Law
of tort remains inconsistent, with significant disparities in judicial interpretations and
outcomes across different regions of the country.

2.5.2 Key Statutes, Judicial Precedents, and Doctrines Governing Law of tort
The legal framework governing Law of tort in Pakistan is primarily derived from the
common law system, supplemented by various statutes that address specific tortious claims.
Key statutes include the Consumer Protection Act, which provides remedies for consumers
harmed by defective products, and the Medical Negligence Ordinance, which outlines the
standards of care expected from healthcare professionals (Rasheed, 2023; Waraich, 2018).
These statutes reflect an evolving recognition of the need for legal protections in response to
emerging societal challenges. (Waraich, 2018)
Judicial precedents have also played a crucial role in shaping Law of tort in Pakistan. The
Supreme Court and High Courts have issued numerous rulings that clarify the application of
tort principles, particularly in cases involving negligence and liability. For example, the Dr.
Ziauddin Ahmed v. Government of Pakistan case established important precedents
regarding the standard of care expected from medical practitioners, emphasizing the need for
adherence to established medical protocols (Rasheed, 2023). Such judicial interpretations not
only provide guidance for future cases but also contribute to the development of a coherent
body of Law of tort.

17
2.5.3 Challenges in the Development of Law of tort in Pakistan
Despite the progress made in developing Law of tort, several challenges hinder its effective
application in Pakistan. Judicial challenges include a backlog of cases, inconsistent
interpretations of tort principles, and a lack of specialized training for judges in Law of tort
(Qadir, 2024). These issues contribute to delays in justice and can discourage victims from
pursuing legitimate claims.
Legislatively, the absence of comprehensive tort reform has left significant gaps in the legal
framework. Many areas of Law of tort remain under-regulated, leading to uncertainty
regarding liability and compensation. For instance, while medical negligence is recognized as
a tort, the lack of clear guidelines for establishing liability can complicate claims and deter
potential litigants (Rasheed, 2023; Waraich, 2018). Furthermore, cultural factors play a
significant role in shaping perceptions of Law of tort, with traditional dispute resolution
mechanisms such as Panchayat and Jirga often preferred over formal legal avenues. These
mechanisms, while culturally significant, can undermine the principles of accountability and
justice that Law of tort seeks to uphold (Qadir, 2024).

2.5.4 Relationship Between Civil Law and Traditional Dispute Mechanisms

The relationship between civil law and traditional dispute resolution mechanisms in Pakistan
is complex. Panchayat and Jirga systems, which are rooted in local customs and traditions,
often serve as alternative forums for resolving disputes, including those that could fall under
Law of tort. While these mechanisms can provide quicker resolutions and are more accessible
to rural populations, they may lack the formal legal protections and standards of
accountability inherent in the civil law system (Qadir, 2024).
Moreover, the reliance on traditional mechanisms can lead to outcomes that are inconsistent
with the principles of justice and fairness espoused by Law of tort. For instance, decisions
made by Panchayat or Jirga may prioritize social harmony over individual rights, potentially
undermining the ability of victims to seek redress for harm suffered (Sugarman, 2015). This
dynamic highlight the need for a more integrated approach that recognizes the value of
traditional dispute resolution while also promoting the principles of accountability and justice
that are central to Law of tort.

18
2.6 Key Cases and Statutes in Pakistani Law of tort

The landscape of Law of tort in Pakistan is shaped by a combination of landmark cases,

statutory frameworks, and the judiciary's role in interpreting and applying these laws. This
section reviews significant tort cases in Pakistan, analyses the existing statutory frameworks,
identifies gaps and limitations, and discusses the judiciary's influence on the development of
Law of tort.

2.6.1 Review of Landmark Tort Cases in Pakistan

Several landmark cases have significantly influenced the development of Law of tort in
Pakistan. One notable case is Abdul Sattar v. Government of Sindh, where the Supreme
Court recognized the right to compensation for victims of negligence, establishing a
precedent for accountability in public service Wasim (2019). This case underscored the
importance of the duty of care owed by public authorities to individuals, reinforcing the
principle that the state can be held liable for negligent acts that result in harm to citizens.
Another pivotal case is Dr. Ziauddin Ahmed v. Government of Pakistan, which addressed
medical negligence and set important standards for the duty of care expected from healthcare
professionals. The court emphasized that medical practitioners must adhere to established
medical protocols, and failure to do so could result in liability for damages (Rasheed, 2023).
This case not only clarified the legal standards for medical negligence but also highlighted
the judiciary's role in protecting patients' rights and ensuring accountability within the
healthcare system.
Additionally, the case of Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited v. Muhammad
Iqbal illustrated the application of tort principles in the context of property damage caused by
negligence. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, emphasizing the importance of
maintaining safety standards to prevent harm to individuals and their property (Waraich,
2018). These cases collectively demonstrate the judiciary's commitment to upholding tort
principles and providing remedies for victims of negligence.

2.6.2 Analysis of Statutory Frameworks: Gaps and Limitations

The statutory framework governing Law of tort in Pakistan includes several key laws, such as
the Pakistan Penal Code (1860), the Civil Procedure Code (1908), and specific statutes
addressing medical negligence and consumer protection. However, significant gaps and
limitations exist within this framework. For instance, while the Consumer Protection Act
provides remedies for consumers harmed by defective products, its implementation has been

19
inconsistent, and many consumers remain unaware of their rights (Qadir, 2024).

20
Moreover, the absence of comprehensive legislation addressing various aspects of Law of
tort, such as environmental liability and workplace injuries, creates uncertainty for potential
claimants. The lack of clear guidelines for establishing liability in these areas can deter
individuals from pursuing legitimate claims, ultimately undermining the effectiveness of Law
of tort as a mechanism for justice (Sugarman, 2015). Additionally, the existing statutes often
fail to address the complexities of modern tortious claims, such as those arising from
technological advancements and emerging industries.

2.6.3 The Role of the Judiciary in Shaping Law of tort

The judiciary in Pakistan has played a crucial role in shaping Law of tort through its
interpretations and rulings. Courts have consistently emphasized the importance of
accountability and justice, often expanding the scope of Law of tort to address contemporary
societal challenges. For example, the judiciary has increasingly recognized the need for
consumer protection and has interpreted existing laws to provide remedies for victims of
negligence in various sectors, including healthcare and public services (Blanco & Pontin,
2016).
Furthermore, the judiciary's willingness to engage with public interest litigation has allowed
for the exploration of tort principles in cases involving marginalized communities and
systemic injustices. This approach has led to significant advancements in the recognition of
rights and the provision of remedies for victims who may otherwise have been excluded from
the formal legal system (Halliday et al., 2012). However, challenges remain, including a
backlog of cases and inconsistent interpretations of tort principles across different courts,
which can hinder the effective application of Law of tort (Lin, 2023).

2.7 Systemic Issues in the Application of Law of tort

The application of Law of tort in Pakistan faces several systemic issues that hinder its
effectiveness and accessibility. These issues include the role of judicial precedents and
backlogs in tort litigation, the immunities afforded to public officials and the implications for
government accountability, and the cultural and economic barriers that affect access to justice
for potential claimants. This section explores these challenges in detail.

2.7.1 The Role of Judicial Precedents and Backlogs in Tort Litigation

Judicial precedents play a critical role in shaping the application of Law of tort in Pakistan.
The doctrine of stare decisis ensures that lower courts follow the legal principles established
21
by higher courts, which contributes to consistency and predictability in tort litigation
Halliday et

22
al. (2012). However, the effectiveness of this system is undermined by significant backlogs in
the judiciary, which can lead to delays in the resolution of tort cases. The backlog of cases in
Pakistani courts is a well-documented issue, with reports indicating that thousands of cases
remain pending for years (Lin, 2023). This situation not only frustrates claimants seeking
timely justice but also diminishes public confidence in the legal system.
The delays in tort litigation can be attributed to various factors, including a shortage of
judges, inadequate legal infrastructure, and procedural complexities that prolong the
adjudication process. As a result, many potential claimants may be discouraged from
pursuing legitimate tort claims, fearing that the process will be lengthy and burdensome
(Bell, 2021). Furthermore, the backlog can lead to inconsistent application of tort principles,
as different judges may interpret precedents in varying ways, creating uncertainty for litigants
and legal practitioners alike.

2.7.2 Immunities of Public Officials and Government Accountability

Another systemic issue in the application of Law of tort in Pakistan is the immunities granted
to public officials, which can significantly limit accountability for tortious actions. The
doctrine of sovereign immunity often shields government entities and officials from liability
for negligent acts performed in the course of their duties (Galasso & Luo, 2016). This legal
protection can create a barrier for individuals seeking redress for harm caused by public
authorities, undermining the principles of accountability and justice that Law of tort seeks to
uphold.
The limited scope of accountability for public officials can lead to a culture of impunity,
where negligent actions go unchallenged and victims are left without recourse. This situation
is particularly concerning in cases involving public health, safety, and welfare, where the
failure of government agencies to fulfil their duties can have serious consequences for
citizens (Khong & Yeh, 2021). The lack of accountability not only affects individual
claimants but also erodes public trust in governmental institutions and the legal system as a
whole.

2.7.3 Access to Justice: Cultural and Economic Barriers to Tort Claims

Access to justice remains a significant challenge in the context of Law of tort in Pakistan,
with cultural and economic barriers posing substantial obstacles for potential claimants.
Culturally, there is often a preference for traditional dispute resolution mechanisms, such as
Panchayat and Jirga, which may discourage individuals from pursuing formal legal avenues

23
(Koko & Nkemjika, 2021). These traditional systems, while rooted in local customs, may
not provide

24
the same level of accountability and legal protections as the formal court system, leading to
outcomes that may prioritize social harmony over individual rights.
Economically, the costs associated with pursuing tort claims can be prohibitive for many
individuals, particularly those from marginalized communities. Legal fees, court costs, and
other expenses can deter potential claimants from seeking justice, especially in a country
where a significant portion of the population lives below the poverty line (Papayannis, 2023).
Additionally, the lack of awareness regarding legal rights and remedies further exacerbates
the issue, as many individuals may not understand the tort claims process or the potential for
compensation available to them.

2.8 Emerging Trends and Developments

The landscape of Law of tort in Pakistan is undergoing significant changes, influenced by

various reform movements, global trends, and evolving societal needs. This section explores
the emerging trends and developments in Pakistani Law of tort, focusing on reform
movements, global influences, and potential future directions for the legal framework.

2.8.1 Reform Movements in Pakistan: Legal Activism and Law of tort

In recent years, Pakistan has witnessed a surge in legal activism aimed at reforming the Law
of tort landscape. Legal activists, including lawyers and civil society organizations, have
increasingly advocated for the rights of victims and the need for comprehensive tort reform.
This activism has been particularly evident in cases involving medical negligence, consumer
rights, and environmental protection, where activists have sought to hold negligent parties
accountable and ensure that victims receive appropriate compensation Khong & Yeh (2021).
One notable example of legal activism is the push for the establishment of specialized
consumer courts to address grievances related to defective products and services. The
Consumer Protection Act, although a step forward, has faced challenges in implementation,
prompting activists to call for more robust mechanisms to protect consumer rights (Baig,
2024). Additionally, public interest litigation has emerged as a powerful tool for addressing
systemic injustices and advocating for the rights of marginalized communities, further
highlighting the role of legal activism in shaping Law of tort in Pakistan (Roth, 2016).

2.8.2 Global Influences on Pakistani Law of tort Development

The development of Law of tort in Pakistan is also influenced by global trends and practices.
As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, legal frameworks in various jurisdictions
25
are

26
being examined and adapted to local contexts. For instance, the rise of digital technology and
artificial intelligence has prompted discussions about the need for new legal standards and
liability frameworks to address emerging issues such as data privacy and the accountability
of autonomous systems (Ahmad & Bhatti, 2023; Uzair, 2021).
Moreover, international human rights standards and conventions are increasingly being
integrated into domestic legal frameworks, influencing the evolution of Law of tort in
Pakistan. The incorporation of these standards has led to greater emphasis on protecting
individual rights and ensuring access to justice for all citizens (Halliday et al., 2012). This
global perspective encourages the adoption of best practices from other jurisdictions,
fostering a more comprehensive and responsive Law of tort system in Pakistan.

2.8.3 Future Directions for Law of tort in Pakistan

Looking ahead, several potential directions for the future of Law of tort in Pakistan can be
identified. First, there is a pressing need for comprehensive legislative reforms to address
existing gaps and limitations in the Law of tort framework. This includes the development of
clear guidelines for establishing liability in cases of medical negligence, environmental harm,
and product liability, which would enhance predictability and fairness in tort claims (Abbas
et al., 2023: Kamal et al., 2023).
Second, the integration of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as mediation and
arbitration, could provide more accessible and efficient avenues for resolving tort disputes.
These mechanisms can alleviate the burden on the judiciary and offer parties a more
collaborative approach to resolving conflicts (Uzair, 2021).
Additionally, increasing public awareness and education regarding tort rights and remedies is
crucial for empowering citizens to seek justice. Legal literacy campaigns can help demystify
the tort claims process and encourage individuals to pursue legitimate claims without fear of
retribution or financial burden (Gandomkar & Bagheri, 2016).
Finally, as Pakistan navigates the challenges posed by technological advancements and
globalization, there is a need for ongoing dialogue and collaboration among legal scholars,
practitioners, and policymakers. This collaborative approach can facilitate the development
of a Law of tort framework that is responsive to contemporary societal needs while upholding
the principles of justice and accountability (Verheyen & Franke, 2022).

27
2.9 Conclusion

The literature review presented in this chapter has provided a comprehensive analysis of the
law of torts and its applicability in Pakistan. By synthesizing the existing body of research,
this section highlights key findings, identify gaps in current research, and suggest directions
for future inquiry.

2.9.1 Synthesis of Reviewed Literature

The review of literature reveals that Law of tort in Pakistan is deeply influenced by its
colonial legacy, which introduced English common law principles that continue to shape its
legal framework. The historical development of Law of tort, as discussed in previous
sections, illustrates a transition from traditional practices to a more structured legal system
that seeks to address civil wrongs and provide remedies for victims (Blanco & Pontin 2016;
Sheldon, 2015). Key cases, such as Abdul Sattar v. Government of Sindh and Dr. Ziauddin
Ahmed v. Government of Pakistan, have established important precedents that reinforce the
principles of accountability and justice within the tort system (Wasim, 2019; Rasheed, 2023).
Moreover, the analysis of statutory frameworks indicates that while there are foundational
laws governing tortious claims, significant gaps and limitations persist. The existing legal
provisions often fail to address contemporary challenges, such as medical negligence and
environmental liability, which necessitate comprehensive reforms (Qadir, 2024; Sugarman,
2015). The role of the judiciary has been pivotal in interpreting these laws, yet systemic
issues such as backlogs in litigation and inconsistent applications of tort principles hinder the
effectiveness of the legal system (Lin, 2023; Bell, 2021).
Emerging trends, including legal activism and global influences, suggest a dynamic evolution
of Law of tort in Pakistan. Legal activists are increasingly advocating for victims' rights and
pushing for reforms that enhance accountability and access to justice (Khong & Yeh, 2021;
Baig, 2024). Additionally, global trends, such as the rise of digital technology and climate
change litigation, are prompting discussions about the need for new legal standards and
frameworks to address emerging issues (Ahmad & Bhatti, 2023; Uzair, 2021).

2.9.2 Key Findings and Gaps in Current Research

The key findings from the literature review highlight several critical aspects of Law of tort in
Pakistan. First, there is a clear recognition of the need for reform to address the gaps in the
existing legal framework, particularly concerning medical negligence and consumer
protection (Qadir, 2024; Sugarman, 2015). Second, the judiciary's role in shaping Law of tort

28
is significant,

29
yet it is often constrained by systemic challenges, including case backlogs and limited
resources (Lin, 2023; Bell, 2021). Third, the influence of legal activism and global trends
presents opportunities for enhancing the effectiveness of Law of tort, but these developments
require further exploration and analysis (Khong & Yeh, 2021; Ahmad & Bhatti, 2023).
Despite these findings, several gaps in current research warrant attention. For instance, there
is a lack of empirical studies examining the impact of Law of tort reforms on access to justice
for marginalized communities in Pakistan. Additionally, the interplay between traditional
dispute resolution mechanisms and formal legal avenues remains underexplored, particularly
in the context of cultural attitudes towards justice (Koko & Nkemjika, 2021). Future research
should also focus on the implications of emerging technologies and global legal trends on the
development of Law of tort in Pakistan, as these factors will likely shape the legal landscape
in the coming years (Ahmad & Bhatti, 2023; Uzair, 2021).

30
Chapter 3:

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter outlines the methodology employed in this study, detailing the research design,
scope, limitations, data collection methods, data analysis techniques, and ethical
considerations. The goal of this chapter is to establish a clear framework for examining the
law of torts in Pakistan, providing an analytical and comparative study that integrates data
from multiple jurisdictions, including Pakistan, the United Kingdom, India, and the United
States.

3.1 Research Design

The research design for this study adopts a comparative legal analysis approach combined
with doctrinal research. Doctrinal research focuses on analyzing legal principles, statutes, and
judicial precedents to critically examine the existing legal framework (Hutchinson & Duncan,
2012). By comparing the law of torts in Pakistan with other jurisdictions, such as the United
Kingdom, United States, and India, the study seeks to identify key differences, challenges,
and areas for reform.
This comparative analytical method involves systematically comparing how Law of tort is
applied across different common law jurisdictions, drawing on similarities and differences in
legal frameworks, judicial precedents, and cultural contexts. According to Örücü (2006),
comparative law is a valuable tool for understanding how legal principles operate in different
environments and how lessons from one jurisdiction may be adapted to another.
In this context, the qualitative research method is appropriate for assessing legal documents,
cases, and secondary literature, focusing on judicial decisions and legislative frameworks
(Creswell, 2013). The study does not involve empirical data collection but instead relies on a
thorough examination of legal texts, case law, and academic literature to critically assess the
state of Law of tort in Pakistan and propose recommendations for its improvement.

31
3.2 Scope and Limitations

3.2.1 Scope
The scope of this research is confined to Law of tort in Pakistan, with a focus on its
comparative and analytical applicability. This study examines:

 Negligence and related doctrines (e.g., duty of care, breach, and damages) as applied in
tortious claims.
 Judicial precedents and key statutes relevant to Law of tort in Pakistan, such as the
Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
 Comparative analysis with jurisdictions such as the United States, United Kingdom, and
India, focusing on areas where Law of tort has evolved more comprehensively,
particularly in medical negligence, consumer protection, and public interest litigation.
 The impact of cultural and traditional dispute resolution mechanisms (e.g., Panchayat and
Jirga systems) on the formal application of Law of tort in Pakistan.

The study also includes a comparative assessment of statutory reforms in other jurisdictions
that may offer lessons for enhancing the applicability of Law of tort in Pakistan. As
Legerwood (2015) notes, comparative legal studies help legal systems evolve by
incorporating best practices from other jurisdictions, making this scope essential for reform
recommendations.

3.2.2 Limitations
There are several limitations to the scope of this research:

1. Jurisdictional Limitation: The focus is primarily on Pakistan and a few comparative

jurisdictions. The study does not cover all countries with common law systems, limiting
the generalizability of its conclusions.
2. Secondary Data Reliance: Since this study is based on secondary sources (e.g., case law,
statutes, journal articles), there may be inherent biases or gaps in the available data
(Glenn, 2010).
3. Language Barriers: A significant portion of Pakistani legal texts and judgments are
written in Urdu, which may not always be accessible in translation. This presents a
challenge in fully comprehending local court decisions.

32
4. Cultural Influence: The influence of traditional dispute resolution systems (e.g.,
Panchayat and Jirga) varies significantly across Pakistan, and there is limited
documentation on how these systems interact with the formal legal system (Rehman,
2020). Therefore, the study may not comprehensively cover these informal systems.

3.3 Data Collection Methods

This research relies on secondary data gathered from various sources, including:

 Legal statutes such as the Pakistan Penal Code (1860), the Civil Procedure Code (1908),
and relevant laws on consumer protection and medical negligence.
 Judicial precedents: Major cases in Pakistan, such as Abdul Sattar v. Government of
Sindh and Dr. Ziauddin Ahmed v. Government of Pakistan, as well as cases from the UK
(e.g., Donoghue v. Stevenson) and the US.
 Law journals and academic articles: Peer-reviewed articles, such as those found in the
International Journal of Law and Public Policy or Pakistan Law Review, provide in-depth
analyses of Law of tort, its development, and its application in Pakistan.
 Books and legal commentaries: Legal scholars such as Winfield and Jolowicz (2020) on
Law of tort, Prosser and Keeton (1984) for U.S. Law of tort, and Atiyah (2016) for
comparative legal studies.
 Government reports and legal reform documents: Pakistan's law commission reports and
comparative legal studies from Indian and British law commissions will be examined for
potential legal reforms.

3.4 Data Analysis Techniques

The data analysis for this study follows a doctrinal analysis approach, which focuses on
examining the primary and secondary sources of law to interpret the rules, principles, and
concepts within Law of tort. This approach includes the following:

 Case Law Analysis: A comprehensive review of landmark tort cases in Pakistan, the
United States, United Kingdom, and India to understand the judicial reasoning and
application of legal doctrines. This will involve tracing the evolution of doctrines such as
duty of care, negligence, and strict liability.

33
 Comparative Legal Analysis: Comparing Pakistan’s Law of tort with that of other
jurisdictions to identify differences in judicial interpretations and statutory provisions
(Legrand, 1999). The comparative approach will help highlight best practices from
developed legal systems and suggest reforms for Pakistan.
 Thematic Analysis: Identifying recurring themes such as judicial inefficiencies, gaps in
legislation, and the role of cultural dispute mechanisms (Ryan & Bernard, 2003). Themes
related to negligence, public interest litigation, and government immunity will be
emphasized.
 Content Analysis: Reviewing academic literature, legal commentaries, and case law to
systematically identify patterns and correlations in how Law of tort is applied
(Neuendorf, 2016). This method allows for an objective examination of legal reforms and
trends within the tort system in Pakistan.

3.5 Ethical Considerations

While this research does not involve human subjects or empirical data collection, there are
several ethical considerations:

 Plagiarism: Adherence to academic integrity is paramount, ensuring that all sources are
properly cited and that original ideas are clearly distinguished from secondary data.
Turnitin or similar plagiarism detection software will be used to verify the originality of
the work.
 Data Integrity: All legal sources, including statutes, case law, and academic articles, must
be reliable and verifiable. Only peer-reviewed journals and primary legal documents from
authentic sources such as official government websites will be used to maintain the
integrity of the research.
 Fair Representation: It is crucial to represent the jurisdictions and legal systems analyzed
in the research accurately, without bias or misrepresentation. The cultural and social
nuances of Law of tort in Pakistan will be discussed with sensitivity to avoid ethnocentric
interpretations.
 Cultural Sensitivity: Given the role of informal dispute resolution systems (e.g.,
Panchayats, Jirgas) in Pakistan, the study will acknowledge their importance in rural
communities while critically evaluating their influence on formal Law of tort. This
ensures the research remains respectful of local customs and traditions without
compromising its analytical rigor (Rehman, 2020).

34
Chapter 4:

APPLICABILITY OF LAW OF TORT IN PAKISTAN

4.1 Introduction to Law of tort in Pakistan

Law of tort, which primarily deals with civil wrongs and compensatory justice, holds
significant importance within legal systems across the world. In Pakistan, Law of tort
remains largely underdeveloped, characterized by its adherence to the principles derived from
English common law. The evolution of Law of tort in Pakistan, influenced heavily by its
colonial past, reflects a legal system that has yet to fully modernize and adapt to
contemporary socio-economic challenges (Rasheed, 2023). Despite the lack of codification,
Pakistani Law of tort continues to function through judicial precedents, guided primarily by
common law principles.
Pakistan’s judicial system, largely reliant on precedent rather than comprehensive statutory
law, treats tort cases on a case-by-case basis. The courts play an essential role in interpreting
common law principles such as negligence, defamation, nuisance, and breach of duty, often
using precedents from English courts and other common law jurisdictions (Khan & Bhatti,
2021). However, this reliance on judicial interpretation has led to inconsistencies in the
application of Law of tort, exacerbated by systemic issues such as judicial backlogs and
limited awareness of tortious rights among the public (Qadir, 2024).
In recent years, discussions about the relevance and reform of Law of tort in Pakistan have
gained momentum, particularly concerning sectors such as medical malpractice, consumer
protection, and environmental harm. Legal scholars and reform advocates argue that
Pakistan’s tort system is ill-equipped to handle the complex issues arising in these areas due
to a lack of statutory guidance and efficient legal procedures (Ahmed, 2022). Moreover,
cultural factors play a significant role in shaping the reception of Law of tort, with many
citizens opting for traditional dispute resolution systems, such as Panchayat and Jirga, which
emphasize community-based solutions rather than formal legal redress (Rehman, 2020).
Law of tort in Pakistan faces a dual challenge: the need for legal reform to modernize its
framework and the cultural shift required to instill trust in the formal legal system over
traditional methods of dispute resolution. As the country strives to align its legal system with
contemporary societal needs, the potential of Law of tort to offer remedies in cases of civil
wrongs and negligence remains underutilized (Jamil, 2023).

35
4.2 Scope of Law of tort in Pakistan

The scope of Law of tort in Pakistan is broad but remains largely uncodified, encompassing a
wide array of civil wrongs such as negligence, defamation, trespass, and nuisance. The
principles governing tortious claims in Pakistan draw heavily from English common law;
however, the application of these principles is inconsistent due to a lack of statutory
frameworks and uneven judicial interpretations (Rasheed, 2023). While Law of tort in other
jurisdictions has evolved through a combination of statutory laws and judicial precedents,
Pakistan continues to rely predominantly on the latter, creating gaps in legal protection for
individuals who suffer from civil wrongs (Jamil, 2023).

4.2.1 Negligence in Pakistan

Negligence forms the backbone of Law of tort in many common law jurisdictions, and it is
no different in Pakistan. The principle of negligence—requiring proof of duty of care, breach
of that duty, causation, and damage—has been recognized by Pakistani courts, though its
application has been inconsistent due to the absence of detailed legislative provisions
(Ahmed, 2022). Courts in Pakistan often refer to British and Indian precedents when
determining negligence claims, which sometimes leads to an application of foreign legal
standards that may not align with Pakistan’s socio-legal context.
Notable cases like Abdul Sattar v. Government of Sindh have helped establish the parameters
of negligence in Pakistan, particularly in cases involving public officials and government
institutions (Rasheed, 2023). However, these judgments remain isolated examples, and a
broader legislative framework is required to ensure consistency in handling negligence
claims. The need for such a framework is particularly evident in sectors like healthcare,
where medical negligence cases have risen significantly, often with catastrophic outcomes for
the affected individuals (Ali & Anwar, 2019).
In terms of medical negligence, Pakistan lags behind other jurisdictions such as India and the
United Kingdom, where legal reforms and case law have established clearer guidelines on the
duties owed by healthcare professionals (Jamil, 2023). In Pakistan, the lack of statutory
regulation leads to uncertainty in determining liability, often resulting in protracted litigation
and inadequate compensation for victims. This issue highlights the urgent need for legal
reforms, particularly in drafting comprehensive laws that address various dimensions of
negligence.

36
4.2.2 Defamation and Privacy
Defamation in Pakistan is another area of Law of tort that reflects a mixture of common law
principles and statutory regulation. Defamation is addressed in both civil and criminal
contexts under the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and the Defamation Ordinance, 2002.
However, the interpretation of defamation law by courts has been inconsistent, particularly in
balancing free speech with the protection of reputation (Khan & Bhatti, 2021). Cases
involving public figures, media organizations, and private individuals frequently surface,
with the courts required to navigate the tensions between free speech, public interest, and
individual privacy.
Recent developments in privacy law globally have pushed for a more nuanced understanding
of defamation and the protection of personal privacy. In Pakistan, however, privacy laws
remain underdeveloped, and courts often struggle to adjudicate between defamation claims
and privacy rights, especially in an era of digital media (Ahmed, 2022). The rise of social
media platforms and the ease of sharing defamatory content online have further complicated
the legal landscape, necessitating reforms that address the challenges posed by modern
communication technologies.

4.2.3 Consumer Protection and Environmental Torts

While Pakistan has made strides in consumer protection laws through the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019, the enforcement of tort claims in consumer matters remains weak
(Ahmed, 2022). Many consumers remain unaware of their rights, and the judicial system is
often ill-prepared to handle tortious claims efficiently. This lack of awareness and
preparedness has led to limited litigation in areas such as product liability and services-
related negligence.
Environmental torts, an emerging area of Law of tort globally, are also underdeveloped in
Pakistan. Despite the increasing environmental challenges faced by the country—such as
pollution, deforestation, and climate change—legal remedies through Law of tort remain
sparse. The judiciary has recognized environmental issues in some landmark cases, such as
Shehla Zia v. WAPDA, which extended the concept of Law of tort to include environmental
negligence and the protection of public health (Ali & Anwar, 2019). However, these cases
are exceptions rather than the norm, and the lack of statutory laws addressing environmental
harm continues to impede the scope of Law of tort in Pakistan (Rehman, 2020).

37
4.2.4 Government Immunity and Public Law Torts
One of the significant challenges to the application of Law of tort in Pakistan is the doctrine
of sovereign immunity, which shields government officials and public authorities from
liability in many tortious claims (Rasheed, 2023). This immunity often prevents victims from
seeking redress for civil wrongs perpetrated by state actors, creating a legal vacuum where
state accountability is limited. Comparatively, jurisdictions like India have made significant
strides in limiting the scope of government immunity, particularly through public interest
litigation (PIL), which allows for greater public accountability (Khan & Bhatti, 2021).
In Pakistan, however, the legal doctrine protecting government entities continues to pose a
significant obstacle to the development of Law of tort. This immunity is particularly
problematic in cases involving public health and safety, where negligence by state
institutions can have devastating consequences. Addressing this challenge will require
legislative reforms aimed at curtailing the scope of government immunity and increasing
state accountability in tortious actions.

4.3 Judicial Role in Law of tort

The judiciary plays a pivotal role in the development and application of Law of tort in
Pakistan, primarily due to the lack of codification in this area. Law of tort in Pakistan is still
heavily reliant on common law principles inherited from English legal traditions, with judges
responsible for interpreting and applying these principles to contemporary cases. Judicial
precedents, therefore, hold significant weight in shaping Law of tort, with the courts’
interpretation of doctrines such as negligence, strict liability, and vicarious liability acting as
the primary source of law for tortious claims (Rasheed, 2023).
However, the judiciary's role in Law of tort has been constrained by several factors, including
the backlog of cases and an overburdened legal system. Pakistan's courts face an enormous
caseload, leading to significant delays in the resolution of civil cases, including those related
to tortious claims (Malik, 2022). This judicial backlog undermines the effectiveness of Law
of tort as a remedy for civil wrongs, as plaintiffs are often discouraged from pursuing claims
due to the time and expense involved in litigation.
Despite these challenges, the judiciary has made notable contributions to the development of
Law of tort in key areas such as medical negligence and environmental protection. For
instance, the case of Shehla Zia v. WAPDA is a landmark ruling that extended the principle of
negligence to environmental issues, recognizing that state authorities owe a duty of care to
the public when it comes to environmental harm (Rasheed, 2023). Similarly, in medical

38
negligence cases, the

39
judiciary has applied the Bolam test, which originated in English law, to assess whether
medical professionals have breached their duty of care to patients (Ahmed & Bhatti, 2022).
These examples illustrate how the judiciary has taken proactive steps to expand the
application of Law of tort in Pakistan, even in the absence of comprehensive statutory
frameworks.
Another critical aspect of the judiciary's role is its influence on public interest litigation
(PIL), which has increasingly been used as a tool for holding public and private entities
accountable for negligence and other tortious actions. In several cases, the courts have
intervened to protect vulnerable groups and address systemic issues related to consumer
rights, environmental harm, and public health (Khan, 2020). While public interest litigation
has empowered citizens to seek redress for civil wrongs, the judiciary’s capacity to
consistently handle these cases remains limited by institutional inefficiencies.
In sum, the judicial role in Law of tort in Pakistan is characterized by its reliance on case law
and judicial interpretation. While judges have played an essential role in shaping the
development of tort principles, the limitations of the legal system—such as delays, resource
constraints, and inconsistent rulings—continue to hinder the effective application of Law of
tort. Thus, there is a pressing need for both judicial reform and legislative codification to
improve the efficacy of Law of tort in Pakistan (Rasheed, 2023; Ahmed & Bhatti, 2022).

4.4 Challenges to the Applicability of Law of tort

The application of Law of tort in Pakistan faces several significant challenges that impede its
development and efficacy as a mechanism for civil justice. These challenges include judicial
inefficiencies, government immunity, lack of public awareness, and cultural reliance on
alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Understanding these obstacles is crucial to
assessing the potential for reform and improving the effectiveness of Law of tort in Pakistan.

4.4.1 Judicial Inefficiencies and Backlogs

One of the most persistent challenges facing the application of Law of tort in Pakistan is the
inefficiency of the judicial system. Courts are often overburdened with a high volume of
cases, leading to long delays in the resolution of disputes, including tort claims (Malik,
2022). This backlog discourages many potential claimants from pursuing tortious actions, as
the process is both time-consuming and costly. In cases of personal injury or negligence,
where timely compensation is crucial, these delays can have severe consequences for
plaintiffs who require swift legal remedies.
40
The inefficiencies within the judicial system are further exacerbated by inconsistent
application of tort principles across different courts. While some judges are well-versed in
Law of tort and its application, others may lack the specialized knowledge needed to handle
complex tortious claims, leading to varied interpretations of negligence and other key
concepts (Jamil, 2023). This inconsistency undermines the predictability and fairness of Law
of tort in Pakistan, as litigants may receive different outcomes depending on the court
handling their case.

4.4.2 Government Immunity and Lack of Accountability

Another significant challenge to the applicability of Law of tort in Pakistan is the doctrine of
sovereign immunity, which shields government officials and institutions from liability in
many tortious claims. Sovereign immunity limits the ability of individuals to hold state actors
accountable for negligence, particularly in areas such as public health, infrastructure, and
environmental management (Rasheed, 2023). In practice, this doctrine often results in a lack
of accountability for civil wrongs committed by government entities, leaving victims without
adequate legal remedies.
This issue is particularly relevant in cases involving large-scale environmental harm or public
health failures, where government negligence can have catastrophic consequences. While
there have been instances where courts have intervened to hold public institutions
accountable, as seen in the Shehla Zia v. WAPDA case, such rulings are exceptions rather than
the norm (Ahmed & Bhatti, 2022). The pervasive nature of government immunity in
Pakistan's legal framework continues to obstruct the effective application of Law of tort,
particularly in holding state entities accountable for civil wrongs.

4.4.3 Public Awareness and Access to Justice

A lack of public awareness regarding tortious rights and remedies is another significant
barrier to the applicability of Law of tort in Pakistan. Many individuals, particularly those
from rural areas, are unaware of their legal rights when they suffer harm as a result of
another's negligence. This lack of awareness, combined with the high cost of litigation and
the slow pace of the judicial system, deters potential plaintiffs from pursuing tort claims
(Khan, 2020). Moreover, legal literacy programs aimed at educating the public about Law of
tort and their rights are minimal, further exacerbating the issue.
Access to justice is also hindered by economic barriers. The cost of litigation in Pakistan can
be prohibitive, especially for marginalized communities that are often the most affected by

41
negligence or civil wrongs. The lack of legal aid programs and support for individuals
seeking

42
compensation through tort claims means that many potential litigants are unable to pursue
their cases, further limiting the reach of Law of tort in Pakistan (Ahmed, 2022).

4.4.4 Cultural Reliance on Traditional Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

Cultural reliance on alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as Panchayat and Jirga,
poses a unique challenge to the formal application of Law of tort in Pakistan. These
traditional mechanisms, deeply rooted in rural areas of the country, prioritize community-
based reconciliation over formal legal proceedings, often resolving disputes through
negotiation and compromise (Rehman, 2020). While these systems are valued for their
accessibility and speed, they may undermine the principles of accountability and justice
inherent in formal Law of tort.
Traditional dispute resolution mechanisms often lack the procedural safeguards and legal
protections that the formal court system offers, leading to outcomes that may not align with
the principles of Law of tort, such as compensation for harm or negligence. Additionally,
decisions made by Panchayats and Jirgas are not always enforceable under formal legal
systems, limiting the ability of victims to seek redress for civil wrongs through the courts
(Ahmed & Bhatti, 2022).

4.5 Comparative Analysis

Comparative legal analysis is essential in understanding the state of Law of tort in Pakistan
and identifying potential areas for reform. By examining how Law of tort operates in other
common law jurisdictions, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and India, we can
gain insights into the strengths and weaknesses of Pakistan’s system. This comparison
highlights key legal doctrines, procedural efficiencies, and the role of public interest litigation
in shaping Law of tort, offering valuable lessons for reform in Pakistan.

4.5.1 Comparing Law of tort in Pakistan with Other Jurisdictions (U.S., U.K., India)

Law of tort in the United States

The U.S. tort system is characterized by its robust framework of judicial precedents, statutory
developments, and the principle of negligence as a key component of civil liability.
Negligence in the United States is grounded in the duty of care, breach, causation, and
damages, providing a comprehensive structure for plaintiffs seeking compensation for harm.
One distinguishing feature of U.S. Law of tort is the concept of negligence per se, where a
43
violation of a statute can automatically establish a breach of duty (Goldberg & Zipursky,
2021). This doctrine, coupled

44
with the availability of punitive damages, offers strong deterrents against harmful conduct,
encouraging greater accountability.
Another critical aspect of the U.S. system is the interaction between Law of tort and
insurance. Insurance plays a central role in compensating victims of tortious conduct,
particularly in cases involving personal injury, medical malpractice, and product liability
(Shavell, 2021). The presence of extensive insurance coverage in the U.S. encourages tort
litigation, as plaintiffs can expect reasonable compensation, even if the defendant lacks the
resources to pay damages. Pakistan’s Law of tort lacks the widespread statutory guidance and
insurance mechanisms that are available in the U.S. Moreover, the absence of punitive
damages in Pakistan’s legal framework limits the deterrence effect of Law of tort. Adopting
mechanisms such as negligence per se or promoting greater insurance coverage could
enhance Law of tort’s efficacy in Pakistan, ensuring that victims receive adequate
compensation while holding defendants accountable for their actions (Ahmed, 2022).

Law of tort in the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom’s tort system, like Pakistan's, is rooted in the principles of common
law, but it has undergone significant statutory reforms and judicial development. One of the
most notable aspects of U.K. Law of tort is the duty of care, which was solidified in the
landmark case Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932). This case established the concept of
foreseeability and proximity, shaping negligence claims in both the U.K. and Pakistan
(Steele, 2020).
A key difference between the U.K. and Pakistan is the former’s public policy considerations
in tort cases. U.K. courts often assess whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose
liability, particularly in cases involving government bodies or public entities (Giliker, 2021).
This approach, combined with the statutory Occupiers’ Liability Act and other legislative
interventions, has created a more structured framework for addressing tortious claims.
In contrast, Pakistan lacks a similar level of statutory development, particularly in areas like
occupiers’ liability and strict liability for dangerous activities. The reliance on common law
principles alone, without the support of robust statutes, makes it difficult for courts in
Pakistan to consistently apply Law of tort principles (Jamil, 2023). Introducing clearer
statutory frameworks, modeled after U.K. legislation, could bring greater predictability and
fairness to tort claims in Pakistan.

45
Law of tort in India
India shares a colonial legal heritage with Pakistan, with both systems influenced by English
common law. However, India has made significant strides in developing its Law of tort
through public interest litigation (PIL), which has expanded access to justice, particularly in
cases involving environmental protection, consumer rights, and human rights (Bhat, 2017).
Indian courts have actively interpreted tort principles to provide remedies for the most
vulnerable, using PIL to address systemic negligence and hold both private entities and the
state accountable.
One notable example is the Bhopal Gas Tragedy case, where Indian courts employed tort
principles to address mass harm caused by industrial negligence, emphasizing corporate
liability and state accountability (Singh, 2020). India’s judiciary has also played a proactive
role in enforcing environmental liability through Law of tort, applying the polluter pays
principle and strict liability in cases of environmental degradation (Muralidhar, 2018).
Pakistan’s tort system has yet to see the widespread use of PIL in addressing tort claims.
While there have been instances where Pakistani courts have entertained public interest
cases, such as Shehla Zia v. WAPDA, these cases remain rare (Ali, 2021). Pakistan could
benefit from following India’s example by promoting PIL as a tool for expanding access to
tort remedies, particularly in cases of environmental harm and consumer protection.

4.5.2 Lessons from Indian Law of tort: Public Interest Litigations and State Accountability
One of the most significant lessons Pakistan can learn from Indian Law of tort is the effective
use of public interest litigation (PIL) to hold state actors and private entities accountable for
civil wrongs. Indian courts have used PIL to address various forms of negligence, including
state negligence, corporate malfeasance, and environmental damage (Bhat, 2017). The
PIL mechanism allows individuals and organizations to bring claims on behalf of the
public, particularly in situations where vulnerable populations are affected, such as in
cases of industrial accidents, environmental hazards, or consumer harm (Singh, 2020).
In India, PIL has also played a crucial role in enforcing constitutional rights alongside
tortious remedies, making it an important tool for both civil and human rights protection
(Muralidhar, 2018). By combining Law of tort with constitutional principles, Indian courts
have ensured that tort claims serve not only to compensate victims but also to prevent future
harms and correct systemic failures. This approach can serve as a model for Pakistan, where
state accountability in Law of tort remains weak due to the prevalence of government
immunity (Ahmed, 2022).

46
Pakistan could adopt a similar framework for PIL to expand the scope of Law of tort and
ensure that individuals affected by environmental harm, government negligence, or corporate
misconduct can seek legal remedies. Such reforms would promote state accountability and
help overcome the limitations imposed by sovereign immunity, which often shields
government officials from tort liability (Khan, 2020).

4.5.3 Adopting International Best Practices for Tort Reform in Pakistan

Several international best practices from the United States, United Kingdom, and India can
inform Law of tort reform in Pakistan. Key practices include:

1. Codification and Statutory Development: One of the primary challenges in Pakistan’s tort
system is the lack of codified laws addressing specific areas of tort liability. Countries
like the U.K. and India have introduced statutes that clarify tort principles in areas such as
occupiers’ liability, product liability, and environmental harm (Giliker, 2021). By
adopting statutory frameworks, Pakistan can bring greater clarity and predictability to its
tort system, reducing the reliance on inconsistent judicial precedents.
2. Promoting Public Interest Litigation (PIL): As seen in India, PIL can serve as a powerful
tool for enforcing Law of tort and holding state actors accountable. Introducing a broader
mechanism for PIL in Pakistan would allow the public to bring claims on behalf of
affected communities, particularly in cases involving environmental hazards or public
health crises (Singh, 2020). This would also mitigate the impact of government
immunity, encouraging greater accountability within public institutions.
3. Enhancing Access to Justice: In the United States, the role of insurance in compensating
tort victims has been instrumental in ensuring that plaintiffs receive timely and adequate
compensation for civil wrongs (Shavell, 2021). Pakistan could benefit from developing
insurance systems that cover tort claims, particularly in areas like personal injury and
medical malpractice, ensuring that victims are compensated even if the defendant is
unable to pay.
4. Introducing Punitive Damages: Another potential reform is the introduction of punitive
damages, as practiced in the U.S. legal system. Punitive damages serve as a deterrent
against egregious conduct, providing a strong incentive for individuals and corporations
to avoid negligent behavior (Goldberg & Zipursky, 2021). While this concept is foreign
to Pakistan’s Law of tort, its introduction could help create a stronger framework for
holding wrongdoers accountable.

47
By adopting these international best practices, Pakistan can reform its Law of tort system,
making it more efficient, accessible, and capable of addressing modern legal challenges.

4.6 Proposed Reforms for Enhancing Law of tort in Pakistan

The development of Law of tort in Pakistan is hampered by several systemic issues,

including the absence of a comprehensive statutory framework, judicial inefficiencies, and
limited public awareness of tortious rights. Given the comparative lessons drawn from
jurisdictions like the U.S., U.K., and India, it is evident that Pakistan must implement both
legislative and judicial reforms to modernize its Law of tort framework. Below are several
key reform proposals to enhance the efficacy and applicability of Law of tort in Pakistan:

4.6.1 Codification of Law of tort

One of the most pressing needs for reform in Pakistan is the codification of Law of tort.
Currently, Law of tort in Pakistan is based on judicial precedents derived from English
common law, leading to inconsistencies in its application across different courts. Codifying
key areas of Law of tort— such as negligence, nuisance, defamation, and medical
malpractice—would create a more predictable and accessible legal framework (Jamil, 2023).
The introduction of comprehensive statutes could provide clearer guidelines for courts and
litigants, reducing reliance on varying interpretations of case law.
Codification would also address the gaps in existing laws, particularly in areas like consumer
protection, environmental liability, and occupiers’ liability. By drafting specific legislation
for these areas, Pakistan can ensure that its Law of tort is better equipped to address modern
legal challenges, such as industrial accidents, product defects, and environmental degradation
(Ahmed, 2022).

4.6.2 Introduction of Public Interest Litigation for Tort Claims

Public interest litigation (PIL) has proven to be an effective tool for holding both private and
public entities accountable in jurisdictions like India, particularly in cases involving mass
harm and environmental damage (Bhat, 2017). Pakistan should consider expanding the scope
of PIL to include tortious claims, allowing individuals and organizations to file lawsuits on
behalf of affected communities.
The use of PIL in Law of tort could be particularly impactful in cases where vulnerable
populations are harmed by corporate negligence, environmental hazards, or state failures
48
(Ali, 2021).

49
Introducing PIL mechanisms would also help overcome the limitations posed by sovereign
immunity, which currently shields many government entities from liability. By expanding the
standing requirements for PIL, Pakistan can enhance public access to justice and create more
robust accountability for civil wrongs.

4.6.3 Judicial Training and Specialization in Law of tort

To address the inconsistencies in judicial interpretations of Law of tort, it is essential to
introduce specialized training for judges and legal practitioners. Many judges in Pakistan lack
the specialized knowledge needed to adjudicate complex tort claims, particularly in areas like
medical malpractice and environmental liability (Malik, 2022). Regular training programs
focusing on international developments in Law of tort and modern legal doctrines can help
judges develop a more nuanced understanding of tort principles.
Additionally, establishing specialized courts or tribunals for tort claims could help streamline
the adjudication process and reduce the burden on general civil courts. In countries like India,
specialized consumer courts and environmental tribunals have been instrumental in
expediting the resolution of tortious claims and ensuring that victims receive timely
compensation (Singh, 2020). Pakistan could benefit from similar reforms, particularly in
high-impact areas like medical negligence and consumer protection.

4.6.4 Expanding Tort Remedies and Introducing Punitive Damages

Pakistan’s Law of tort lacks certain remedies commonly available in other jurisdictions, such
as punitive damages, which are intended to punish defendants for particularly egregious
conduct. The introduction of punitive damages in cases of gross negligence, fraud, or
intentional harm could serve as a strong deterrent against wrongful behavior (Goldberg &
Zipursky, 2021). Punitive damages would also provide plaintiffs with greater compensation
in cases where compensatory damages alone are insufficient to address the harm suffered.
Moreover, Pakistan should consider expanding the range of available remedies in tort cases
to include injunctions and declaratory relief. These remedies can be particularly useful in
cases involving ongoing harm, such as environmental degradation or continuing public
nuisances, where monetary damages alone may not suffice to prevent further damage
(Rasheed, 2023).

4.6.5 Promotion of Insurance Coverage for Tort Claims

One of the barriers to the effective application of Law of tort in Pakistan is the lack of

50
comprehensive insurance coverage for potential tort defendants, particularly in areas like

51
medical malpractice and personal injury. In jurisdictions like the U.S., insurance plays a
central role in ensuring that victims are compensated, even if the defendant lacks the
financial resources to pay damages (Shavell, 2021). Expanding the availability of liability
insurance for professionals, businesses, and government entities would help ensure that tort
victims receive adequate compensation while reducing the risk of bankrupting defendants.
The promotion of mandatory insurance in high-risk sectors, such as healthcare and
construction, could be a key step in improving the overall effectiveness of Law of tort. In
medical malpractice cases, for example, mandatory insurance could help address the rising
number of negligence claims and ensure that patients receive compensation without lengthy
court battles (Ahmed & Bhatti, 2022).

4.6.6 Raising Public Awareness of Tortious Rights

A significant challenge in the application of Law of tort in Pakistan is the general public’s
lack of awareness regarding their legal rights in cases of civil wrongs. Many individuals,
particularly in rural areas, are unfamiliar with the concept of Law of tort and the remedies
available to them through the courts (Khan, 2020). Public awareness campaigns and legal
literacy programs could play a crucial role in educating citizens about their rights under Law
of tort and encouraging more individuals to seek legal redress.
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), legal aid societies, and bar associations could
collaborate to provide legal education workshops and resources to vulnerable communities.
These initiatives would not only empower individuals to pursue tort claims but also
contribute to the overall development of a more robust civil justice system in Pakistan
(Rehman, 2020).

4.7 Conclusion

Law of tort in Pakistan remains underdeveloped and inconsistently applied, primarily due to
the reliance on common law principles and the absence of comprehensive statutory
frameworks. While Pakistan’s judiciary has made some strides in expanding the application
of Law of tort, particularly in cases involving medical negligence and environmental harm,
significant gaps remain. By drawing on comparative lessons from jurisdictions like the U.S.,
U.K., and India, it is clear that there are several areas where Pakistan’s Law of tort can be
reformed.
Proposed reforms include the codification of Law of tort, the introduction of public interest
litigation for tortious claims, and the specialization of judges in Law of tort. Additionally,
52
expanding the range of tort remedies, including punitive damages, and promoting insurance
coverage for high-risk sectors can strengthen the tort system and ensure that victims receive

53
adequate compensation. Public awareness campaigns are also critical in educating citizens
about their rights under Law of tort and encouraging more individuals to seek redress for
civil wrongs.
Ultimately, the modernization of Pakistan’s Law of tort requires a coordinated effort between
the judiciary, legislature, and civil society. By implementing these reforms, Pakistan can
develop a more effective and equitable tort system that provides timely remedies for victims
of civil wrongs and deters negligent or harmful conduct.

54
Chapter 5:

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Synthesis of Key Findings

The study of Law of tort and its applicability in Pakistan reveals several critical insights into
the current state of the legal framework, its challenges, and areas that require reform.
Pakistan’s Law of tort remains deeply rooted in common law principles inherited from the
British legal system, with reliance on judicial precedents rather than comprehensive statutory
codification. The absence of a structured and updated legal framework has contributed to
inconsistencies in the application of tort principles, particularly in cases involving
negligence, defamation, and public nuisance (Rasheed, 2023).
Through a comparative analysis with jurisdictions such as the United States, the United
Kingdom, and India, the study highlights several areas where Pakistan’s Law of tort lags
behind. For instance, the U.S. and U.K. legal systems have developed comprehensive
statutory frameworks that govern various aspects of Law of tort, from strict liability to
consumer protection and environmental harm (Giliker, 2021). In India, public interest
litigation (PIL) has expanded the reach of Law of tort, enabling courts to address systemic
issues and hold both private and public entities accountable (Broughton, 2005).
Despite these gaps, Pakistan’s judiciary has played a proactive role in expanding Law of tort,
as seen in landmark cases like Shehla Zia v. WAPDA, which applied negligence principles to
environmental issues (Rasheed, 2023). However, judicial activism alone cannot address the
broader systemic issues, including judicial inefficiency, backlog of cases, and limited public
awareness of tortious rights. The study concludes that while Pakistan’s Law of tort has the
potential to provide adequate remedies for civil wrongs, it requires significant reforms to
modernize and adapt to contemporary legal challenges.

5.2 Implications

The findings of this study have several important implications for Pakistan’s legal system and
its approach to civil justice:

1. Legal Certainty and Predictability: The lack of a codified Law of tort framework leads
to inconsistencies in judicial rulings, making it difficult for litigants to predict outcomes.

55
This

56
 unpredictability discourages potential claimants from pursuing legitimate claims,
undermining the effectiveness of Law of tort as a remedy for civil wrongs (Jamil, 2023).
2. State Accountability: The doctrine of sovereign immunity in Pakistan shields
government entities from liability in many tort cases, limiting accountability. This
doctrine contradicts the principles of justice and fairness, as state actors are often immune
from lawsuits, even in cases of gross negligence (Khan, 2020). The study highlights the
need for legal reforms that narrow the scope of sovereign immunity, especially in cases
involving public safety and health.
3. Public Interest Litigation: The comparative analysis with India underscores the
potential of PIL to expand access to justice and address collective harms. The success of
PIL in India, particularly in environmental and consumer protection cases, provides a
model for how Pakistan can use litigation to drive social and legal reform (Bhat, 2017).
4. Economic Implications: The absence of robust Law of tort not only affects individuals
seeking compensation for harm but also impacts broader economic activities. Businesses
and professionals may lack adequate insurance coverage, increasing the financial risks
associated with litigation (Shavell, 2021). Developing clearer legal frameworks,
particularly for professional negligence and product liability, could foster greater
economic security and legal certainty for both individuals and corporations.

5.3 Policy Recommendations

Based on the findings, several policy recommendations can be proposed to improve the
effectiveness of Law of tort in Pakistan:

 Codification of Law of tort: The most urgent reform is the codification of Law of tort in
Pakistan. While common law principles are valuable, they are insufficient to address the
modern complexities of civil wrongs. Codifying key areas such as negligence, nuisance,
defamation, and medical malpractice would provide greater clarity and consistency for
litigants and the judiciary (Rasheed, 2023). The introduction of comprehensive statutes
would also help align Pakistan’s legal system with international best practices, reducing
reliance on judicial interpretation alone.
 Reforming Sovereign Immunity: Reforming the doctrine of sovereign immunity is
critical to ensuring state accountability. Pakistan can look to India’s legal framework,
where the scope of sovereign immunity has been limited through judicial rulings and
public interest litigation. By narrowing the application of sovereign immunity, Pakistan

57
can ensure

58
 that state actors are held accountable for negligent actions, particularly in cases involving
public health, infrastructure, and environmental harm (Khan, 2020).
 Strengthening Public Interest Litigation: Encouraging the use of public interest
litigation (PIL) could significantly improve access to justice, particularly for marginalized
communities affected by negligence and civil wrongs. PIL has been a powerful tool in
India for holding corporations and the state accountable for large-scale harms, such as
environmental disasters (Broughton, 2005). Pakistan’s legal system should promote PIL
mechanisms that allow individuals and civil society organizations to bring claims on
behalf of affected groups, particularly in cases involving consumer rights, environmental
protection, and public health.
 Expanding Remedies and Introducing Punitive Damages: Pakistan’s Law of tort
should expand the range of available remedies, particularly by introducing punitive
damages. Punitive damages, which are available in jurisdictions like the United States,
serve as a deterrent against egregious conduct and provide plaintiffs with compensation
beyond simple restitution (Goldberg & Zipursky, 2021). Introducing punitive damages in
Pakistan could incentivize individuals and corporations to avoid negligent behavior and
strengthen the deterrent effect of Law of tort.
 Promoting Legal Literacy and Access to Justice: A key challenge identified in this
study is the lack of public awareness regarding tortious rights and remedies. Legal
literacy campaigns, particularly in rural areas, could educate the public on their rights
under Law of tort and encourage more individuals to seek redress for civil wrongs
(Rehman, 2020). Additionally, establishing legal aid programs for tort claims would
ensure that economically disadvantaged individuals have access to justice, particularly in
cases involving personal injury or medical malpractice.

5.4 Future Research Directions

While this study has provided a comparative and analytical overview of Law of tort in
Pakistan, several areas warrant further research:

1. Empirical Studies on Tort Claims: Future research should focus on conducting

empirical studies that analyze the patterns of tort claims in Pakistan, including data on the
types of cases brought, the outcomes of litigation, and the demographics of claimants.
This research would provide valuable insights into how Law of tort is applied in practice
and highlight any disparities in access to justice (Jamil, 2023).

59
2. Comparative Legal Reforms: Further comparative studies should be conducted to
explore legal reforms in other developing countries, particularly those with similar legal
systems. A closer examination of how countries like India, Bangladesh, and South Africa
have developed their Law of tort frameworks could offer additional lessons for Pakistan
(Hasan, 2011).
3. The Role of Insurance in Law of tort: The role of insurance in Law of tort remains
underexplored in Pakistan. Future research should investigate how the expansion of
liability insurance could improve access to compensation for tort victims and reduce the
financial burden on defendants. This would be particularly relevant for high-risk sectors,
such as healthcare and construction (Shavell, 2021).
4. Technology and Law of tort: With the rise of digital technology and artificial
intelligence (AI), future research should explore how Law of tort will adapt to new
challenges, such as data breaches, privacy violations, and algorithmic harm. Research on
how international jurisdictions are addressing these issues could help Pakistan prepare for
the legal challenges posed by technological advancements (Broughton, 2005).

5.5 Conclusive Thoughts

In conclusion, the study of Law of tort in Pakistan highlights both its potential and its
limitations. While the judiciary has played a vital role in developing tort principles,
significant gaps remain in the legal framework. The comparative analysis reveals that
Pakistan can learn valuable lessons from jurisdictions like the U.S., U.K., and India,
particularly regarding codification, public interest litigation, and state accountability. By
implementing the proposed reforms, Pakistan’s Law of tort system could become more
efficient, accessible, and capable of addressing the evolving legal challenges of the 21st
century. However, these reforms will require coordinated efforts from the judiciary,
legislature, and civil society to ensure that Law of tort serves its purpose in providing fair and
just remedies for civil wrongs.

60
 References

Abbas, S., Latif, M., & Anjum, R. (2023). Silent Struggles: An In-depth Content Analysis of
Pakistani Abortion Laws and the Rights of Survivors of Sexual Assault in the
Shadows of Taboo. Pakistan Social Sciences Review, 343-351.
Ahmad, I., & Bhatti, Z. (2023). Law of tort and Digital Accountability: The Case for Reform
in Pakistan. Pakistan Law Review.
Ahmad, M. S., & Bhatti, S. H. (2023). Assessing Women's Rights in Pakistan: An Analysis of
Legal & Social Challenges with Potential Solutions. Pakistan Journal of Humanities
and Social Sciences, 11(2).
Arlen, J. H. (n.d.). Chapter: 3 - Economics of Law of tort. In F. Parisi, The Oxford Handbook
of Law and Economics: Volume 2: Private and Commercial Law (pp. 41–95). Oxford
Academic.
Asmat, D., & Tennyson, S. (2013). Does the Threat of Insurer Liability for “Bad Faith”
Affect Insurance Settlements? Journal of Risk & Insurance, 81(1), 1-26.
Aytac, U. (2018). Is the truth condition superfluous for defeasibility theories of knowledge?
Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi / Cilicia Journal of Philosophy, 5(2), 17-34.
Baig, K. (2024). An Analysis of the Legal System: A comparative Study in the Context of
Pakistan and the UK. BBE, 13(1).
Baker, T. (2010). Insurance in sociolegal research. Annual Review of Law and Social Science,
6(1), 433-447.
Bell, J. (2021). Law of tort and the moral law: anglo-french divergences. The Cambridge Law
Journal, 80(S1), S33-S60.
Bhat, A. (2017). Public Interest Litigation and Law of tort in India: Expanding the Scope of
Civil Liability. Journal of Indian Law and Society, 45(2), 112-132.
Blanco, E., & Pontin, B. (2016). Litigating Extraterritorial Nuisances under English Common
Law and UK Statute. Transnational Environmental Law, 6(2), 285-308.
Bocharov, T. (2021). Is there a “compensation culture” in contemporary Russia? Oñati Socio-
Legal Series, 11(2), 557–589.
Brennan, C. (2022). Law of tort Directions. Oxford University Press.
Broughton, E. (2005). The Bhopal disaster and its aftermath: a review. Environmental health:
a global access science source, 4(1), 6.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches. SAGE Publications.

61
Farrukh, U. D. (2022). TORTS CAN BE THE PERFECT SOLUTION FOR REDRESSING
THE NEGLIGENCE COMMITTED BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES IN PAKISTAN.
Pak. Journal of Int’L Affairs, 5(4).
Faure, M., & Peeters, M. (2019). Liability and climate change. Oxford Research
Encyclopedia of Climate Science.
Galasso, A., & Luo, H. (2017). Tort Reform and Innovation. The Journal of Law and
Economics, 60(3), 385-412.
Gandomkar, H., & Bagheri, P. (2016). Comparative Study of Multiple Causation in the
Iranian and Malaysian Law of tort. Sociology and Criminology-Open Access, 4(1).
García-Ripoll, M. (2015). Unlawfulness in Western European Law of tort. Open Access
Library Journal, 1-18.
Giliker, P. (2014). Book review: Law of tort and the legislature: common law, statute and the
dynamics of legal change. Common Law World Review, 43(2), 183-185.
Giliker. (2018). What do we mean by eu Law of tort? Journal of European Law of tort, 9(1),
1-24. Glenn, H. P. (2010). Legal Traditions of the World: Sustainable Diversity in Law.
Oxford
University Press.
Gondal, A. (2023). Unraveling Justice: A Critical Examination of Pakistan’s Judicial History
and its Failures. Pakistan Social Sciences Review.
Hall, S. (2021). Modern Law Research. Modern Law Research, 2(1).
Halliday, S., Ilan, J., & & Scott, C. (2012). Street‐level Law of tort: the bureaucratic justice of
liability decision‐making. Modern Law Review, 75(3), 347-367.
Hasan, L. (2011). Rule of Law, Legal Development and Economic Growth: Perspectives for
Pakistan. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, 48-59.
Hutchinson, T., & Duncan, N. (2012). Defining and describing what we do: Doctrinal legal
research. Deakin Law Review, 17(1), 83-119.
Hylton, K. N. (2016). Law of tort: A Modern Perspective. Boston: Cambridge University
Press.
Jadalhaq, I. M., & Alqodsi, E. M. (2020). Law of tort makes a quantum leap: a review of the
civil liability regime for nuclear operators in UAE law. Journal of Property Planning
and Environmental Law, 13(1), 17-30.
Jalali, R. (2017, July 27). Frustration of the Law of Torts In Pakistan. From Courting The
Law: https://courtingthelaw.com/2017/07/27/commentary/frustration-of-the-law-of-
torts-in-pakistan/

62
Kamal, A., Haq, H., & Mayingjie. (2023). LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
DEVELOPMENT IN FOREST SECTOR OF PAKISTAN WITH INTERNATIONAL
PERSPECTIVE. Russian Law Journal, 11(4).
Karthibun. (2023). TORTIOUS LIABILITY OF STATE: A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON
INDIAN, THE UK, AND THE US LAW. Indian Journal of Integrated Research in
Law, III(I).
Khong, D. W., & Yeh, W.-J. (2021). Liability from the use of medical artificial intelligence: a
comparative study of English and Taiwanese Law of torts. F1000Research.
Khurshid, M. (2022, April 12). Jirga System in Pakistan: A transgression of human rights.
From Research Society of International Law: https://rsilpak.org/2022/jirga-system-
in- pakistan-a-transgression-of-human-rights/
Koko, M., & Nkemjika, C. V. (2021). The concept of tort liability in education: what the
teacher should know. European Journal of Education Studies, 8(6).
Legerwood, G. (2015). Comparative law and its relevance in legal education. Comparative
Law Review, 56(2), 23-46.
Lewis, R. K. (2011). How Important are Insurers in Compensating Claims for Personal Injury
in the UK? SSRN Electronic Journal.
Lin, R. J. (2023). Law of tort and its effects on modern chinese society. International Journal
of Law and Politics Studies, 5(2), 93-99.
Muralidhar, S. (2018). Environmental Law and Public Interest Litigation in India: Expanding
Law of tort Principles. Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 128-145.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2016). The Content Analysis Guidebook. SAGE Publications.
Nolan, D. (2017). 1. General Introduction. In M. Lunney, D. Nolan, & K. Oliphant, Law of
tort: Text and Materials. Oxford University Press.
Örücü, E. (2006). Methodology of Comparative Law: Sharper Focus or Shifting
Foundations? European Journal of Comparative Law, 4(2), 15-36.
Papayannis, D. M. (2023). The morality of compensation through Law of tort. Ratio Juris,
36(1), 3-25.
Qadir, A. (2024). Challenges of Law of tort in Pakistan. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Rasheed, A. (2023). Medical Negligence or Malpractice: Critical Review of Relevant Laws
in Pakistan. Department of Forensic Medicine, Services Institute of Medical
Sciences, Lahore, 19(3).
Rasheed. (2023). Law of tort and Government Accountability: Challenges in Pakistan. South
Asian Legal Studies Journal, 15(1), 78-99.

63
Rehman, J. (2020). Dispute Resolution in Pakistan: The Role of Panchayat and Jirga
Systems. South Asian Journal of Law, 12(1), 112-130.
Roth, L. M. (2016). What’s the Rush? Law of torts and Elective Early-term Induction of
Labor.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 57(4), 486-501.
Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to Identify Themes. Field Methods,
15(1), 85-109.
Shavell, S. (2021). The Role of Insurance in Law of tort: Compensating Victims in the U.S.
Journal of Legal Studies, 50(2), 75-96.
Stanton, K. M. (2013). Comparative Law in the House of Lords and Supreme Court.
Common Law World Review, 42(3), 269-296.
Sugarman, S. D. (2015). Torts in law. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral
Sciences (Second Edition), 429-433.
Terwindt, C., Leader, S., Yilmaz-Vastardis, A., & Wright, J. (2018). Supply Chain
Liability: Pushing the Boundaries of the Common Law? Journal of European Law
of tort, 8(3), 261-296.
Uzair, M. (2021). Who Is Liable When a Driverless Car Crashes? World Electric Vehicle
Journal, 12(2), 62.
Verheyen, R., & Franke, J. (2022). Climate Change Litigation: A Reference Area for
Liability. In P. K. Gailhofer, Corporate Liability for Transboundary Environmental
Harm (pp. 353-418). Springer, Cham.
Wagner, G. (2017). Chapter 13: Law of tort and liability insurance. In Encyclopedia of Law
and Economics (p. 48230). Encyclopedia.
Waraich, R. S. (2018). Healthcare System and Medical Malpractice Law in Pakistan. Policy
Perspectives, 15(3).
Wasim, M. A. (2019). Law of Tort; Scope and Application of the Law of Tort in Pakistan.
SSRN Electronic Journal.
Witting, C. (2021). 1. Overview of Law of tort. In Street on Torts. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Yasin, W. (2015, June). FAILURE OF LAW OF TORT IN PAKISTAN. From PLJ Law:
https://www.pljlawsite.com/2015art15.htm

64
Jamal Research.docx
ORIGINALITY REPORT

6 %
SIMILARITY INDEX
3%
INTERNET SOURCES
2%
PUBLICATIONS
3%
STUDENT PAPERS

PRIMARY SOURCES

Oliphant, Ken, Nolan, Donal. "Lunney &

1
Oliphant's Law of tort", Lunney & 1%
Oliphant's Law of tort, 2023
Publication

2
fastercapital.com
Internet Source
<1
Submitted to Leeds Trinity and All Saints %
3 Student Paper

Pino-Emhart, Alberto. "The Old and

<1
4 %
New Philosophical Foundations of Law of
tort : John Oberdiek (ed) , Philosophical
Foundations of the Law of Torts, <1
Oxford: Oxford University Press, %
2014, 464 pp, hb, £75.00.", Modern
Law Review, 2016.
Publication

5
en.wikipedia.org
Internet Source

6
Submitted to Purdue University
Student Paper
<1
%
<1%