IMMUNITIES-TORTIOUS LIABILITY

INTRODUCTION
What is Tort and Tortious Liability?
• The term tort is the French equivalent of the English word ‘wrong’
and of the Roman law term ‘delict’
HEALTHCARE
• Essential conditions for an act to constitute tort is:
- There must be wrongful act or omission;
- The wrongful act or omission must give rise to legal
damage or actual damage; and
- The wrongful act or omission must give rise to legal
damage or actual damage; and
- The wrongful act must be of such a nature as to give rise to
a legal remedy in the form of an action for damages.

• A tortious liability arises because of a combination of directly

violating a person's rights and the transgression of a public
obligation causing damage or a private wrongdoing

2
 PRINCIPLES OF LIABILITY IN TORT
General Rules to Liability in the law of torts

Defendant is liable for

06 the tort whether or not Tortfeasor was 01
HEALTHCARE
injury is caused 01 negligent in
Principle of fault of performing his duty
In this principle of negligence
05 liability, a defendant is
Liability only incase 02
expected to take a victim 06 02 the plantiff has
as he finds him. He would
Strict Liability Principle of suffered harm
not be vindicated by the
Damage
fact that his actions, if
Court would waste no 03
done to a normal person,
time in dismissing
would not result in injury
cases based on trivial
This principle means that if or insignificant matters
04 05
an act is done intentionally 03
and knowingly and it results Unusual Plantiff De Minimis
Rule
into damage being done to Non Curat Lex
another party, the tortfeasor
would be liable. This is 04
Intentional
regardless of the fact that the
Damage is never
act was done in mischief, too remote
was innocent or a joke.
3
IMMUNITIES FROM TORTS
Minors
• Infant immunity applies to minors that are too young to grasp the
consequences of their actions
HEALTHCARE
• Intent: In addition, the minor must not have no intent to cause
harm to person or property. It cannot be claimed that the minor did
not understand the consequences of their actions, if they intended
the negative consequences that resulted from their actions. Intent
cannot be present without an understanding of possible outcomes.

• In cases that involve infant immunity, the parents or guardians of

the minor, could be held liable for their actions, regardless of the
minors understanding of the possible outcomes of those actions.
Insanity immunity can be utilized as a defense in cases where a
person is deemed insane, or mentally incapable of understanding
the possible outcomes of an action.

• In cases where insanity immunity is a factor, the caregiver of the

person that acted in manner which caused a negative outcome,
could be held liable in the same manner that a parent or guardian
could be liable for a minor.

4
IMMUNITIES FROM TORTS
Government
• Government immunity, also known as SOVEREIGN
IMMUNITY, insulates federal, state, and local governments
from liability for torts that an employee commits within the
HEALTHCARE
scope of his or her official duties.

• The doctrine of sovereign immunity is based on the Common

Law principle borrowed from the British Jurisprudence that the
King commits no wrong (‘Rex non potest peccare’)and that he
cannot be guilty of personal negligence or misconduct, and as
such cannot be responsible for the negligence or misconduct of
his servants.

• The Indian courts, in order to not let genuine claims be defeated,

kept narrowing the scope of sovereign functions, so that the
victims would receive damages. The Law Commission of India
too, in its very first report, recommended the abolition of this
outdated doctrine. But for various reasons, the draft bill for the
abolition of this doctrine was never passed, and thus it was left
to the courts to decide on the compatibility of this doctrine in
accordance with the Constitution of India.

5
IMMUNITIES FROM TORTS
Government
• It is Article 300 of the Constitution of India, 1950, which specifies the liability of the Union or the State with
respect to an act of the Government.
HEALTHCARE
• The nature of exact functions for which the Government can be sued has been analyzed in a host of cases and
difficult to express. Simply, the earlier view was that the government cannot be sued for sovereign functions
(those which can only be performed by the government), but be liable for non-sovereign functions (those
performed by an individual).

• However, the doctrine got overruled in N. Nagendra Rao v. State of AP where the courts diluted this doctrine
of sovereign-immunity if the State has been negligent in performing its functions due to which damages have
resulted. Sovereignty not vests in the people. The ratio is applicable in equal measure to violations of
fundamental rights [Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar, 1983 where the victim was put behind bars for 14 years even
after his acquittal; the court directed a compensation of Rs. 35000].A statutory duty of the government must be
shown along with a failure thereof and proof of resultant damage.

6
IMMUNITIES FROM TORTS
Government
• The state generally benefits from two forms of immunity

HEALTHCARE
• A state’s immunity to jurisdiction results from the belief that it would
be inappropriate for one State’s courts to call another State under its
Immunity to jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction
• State entities are immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of
another State.

• The State will also have immunity from execution, as it would be

Immunity from improper for the courts of one State to seize the property of another
execution State. Immunity from execution may also generally be waived

7
IMMUNITIES FROM TORTS
Principal-Agent; Employer-Employee
Principal-Agent Relationship
In the context of agency, the agent is acting
vicariously for the principal. A principal is
responsible for the tortious acts of an agent
pursuant to a doctrine known as “respondeat
superior”. More specifically, an agent may create
legal ability for the principal for actions taken by
the agent “within the scope of the agency.
This form of liability finds its basis on the
common agency law principle of respondeat
superior or “let the master answer," imputing the
actions of the servant agent) on the master
(principal).
HEALTHCARE
Employee-Employer Relationship
Employers are vicariously liable, under the
respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts
or omissions by their employees in the course of
employment (sometimes referred to as 'scope of
employment'). For an act to be considered within
the course of employment it must either be
authorised or be so connected with an authorised
act that it can be considered a mode, though an
improper mode, of performing it.