Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tort
Tort
Ans. The term 'Tort' has been derived from the Latin word 'Tortum' which means
to twist or to crook or a wrongful act rather an act which is straight or lawful. The
word tort is equivalent the word wrong in English & delict in Roman. The word
tort was used first time in case of Boulten Vs Hardley.
Essentials of Torts
Act or Omission
Legal Damages
Legal Remedy
________________________
Ques. Define Defamation as tort and bring out the difference between Libel &
Slander also discuss its exception or defences.
Ans. A mans reputation is more valuable than other property. Everyman has the
right to protection of his reputation. Injury to ones reputation has been termed as
defamation. Defamation is an act which constitutes both civil & criminal liability.
The object of law of defamation is to maintain the balance between freedom of
speech and right of reputation.
Defamation is defined by the eminent jurist as under
Defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in
the estimation of right thinking members of society generally or which tend to
make them shun or avoid that person ..Dr. Winfield
Defamation is the publication of false & defamatory statement regarding another
without any justification .Salmond
English Law Under English law there are two types of defamation i.e. Libel &
Slander
English Law
Libel Slander
Libel Libel is the defamation in a written permanent form, normally addressed to
the eye, through printed picture caricature, film etc. it is self prosecuted i.e. it
shall not be necessary to allege or prove special damage.
Slander It is the defamation in a oral, temporary form, normally addressed to
the ear, through words or gesture. It is not self prose cured i.e it shall be necessary
to allege or prove special damage.
Difference between Libel & Slander -
1. Nature In Libel the defamation statement is made in some permanent &
visible form, such as written printing & pictures etc while in slander defamation
statement is made by some spoken words whether visible or audible such as
gesture etc. it is therefore generally said that libel is addressed to the eye &
slander is addressed to the ears.
2. Scope Libel is actionable perse (in itself) i.e. without proof of actual damage,
where as slander is actionable only on proof of actual damage.
3. Injury - Libel is not merely an actionable tort but also a criminal offence while
slander is a civil injury only and not a criminal offence except in some cases.
4. Limitation Limitation for instituting criminal proceeding or civil suit against the
defendant for libel in 6 yr in England and 1 yr in India while in Slander it is 2 yr & 1
yr respectively.
Indian Law - In India both civil & criminal action can be taken against defamation.
Sec 499 of I.P.C defines defamation as publication of false statement with
intentions, while the liability for defamation in tort does not depend on the
motive or malice of the defendant. The distinction between Libel & Slander is not
recognized under Indian Law.
Essential of Defamation - In an action for defamation as tort, the plaintiff has to
prove the following essentials
Essentials of Defamation
Defences
Truth Comment Privilege Apology
Some dangerous thing Non natural use of land Plaintiff suffered from damages
bought or collected on land
& it should be escaped
1. Some dangerous thing bought or collected on land - The first essential condition
for the application of the rule is that the defendant must have bought or collected
on his land & kept there some dangerous things or anything likely to do mischief if
it escapes like water, gas, electricity, poisonous trees, sewages, explosive etc.
2. Non natural use of land - Every person have a exclusive right to use his land but
he cant use his Land in non natural manner. The use of land is natural or not is
depend upon the fact & circumstances of each & every case.
3. Plaintiff suffered from damages - Move on ones land bringing or keeping a
dangerous thing & non natural use of land is not an actionable wrong, unless &
until plaintiff suffered some damage from that thing.
Exception (Defences) of strict liability - The rule of strict liability not follows in the
following conditions or following are the defences of defendant in case of strict
liability
Exceptions of Strict Liability
Plaintiffs own default Natural use of land Act of the stranger Mutual Benefit
1. Plaintiffs own default - Where the damage is caused to the claimant solely by
his own act or default he shall have no remedy against the defendant. As in case
of Ponting Vs Noakes where in the plaintiffs horse reached over the defendants
boundary, nibbed some poisonous leaves & died, the plaintiff could not recover
anything because the damage was due to his own horses intrusion & there had
been no escape of vegetation.
2. Act of God (Vis Major) - The principle of strict liability does not apply for the
damage caused due to acts which are irresistible & beyond human contemplation
& caused due to operation of some superior force which is beyond human control.
3. Natural use of land - The rule of strict liability does not apply in the case where
the things are present on a persons land in the natural form or arise on the land,
even though they are dangerous.
4. Consent of the plaintiff -The rule of strict liability is not applicable in the cases
where the things which escapes was brought or kept upon defendants premises
by the defendant with the consent of the plaintiff. This exception is also called
volentin non fit injuria.
5. Act of the stranger - Where damage is caused due to wrongful act of a third
party or a Stranger over whom the defendant had no control the defendant will
not be liable.
6. Statutory Authority -Where the defendant acted in pursuance of special
statutory authority in placing the dangerous thing on the land from which it
escaped the rule is not applicable.
7. Common Benefit -If the dangerous thing has been bought on the defendants
land for the common benefit of both the plaintiff & the defendant, the defendant
will not be liable for harm caused by the escape of such things.
Ques. Whether the rule of Rylands Vs Fletcher applicable in India?
Ans. In a case of state of Punjab Vs M/s Modern Cultivators, the Supreme Court
expressly held that India is a agricultural based country so to store a water on land
is not to be considered unnatural use of land. Supreme Court held that, In India
the general rule in Ryland Vs Fletcher is accepted, though in some cases, the
principle in the case was considered to be modified in application to the Indian
conditions.