Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • A K Jain Soft

    Uploaded by

    Krishna Dembla
    11 views213 pages

    Original Title

    A K Jain Soft Copy

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    11 views213 pages

    A K Jain Soft

    Uploaded by

    Krishna Dembla

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 213
    Cerrar © 19972 ASCENT PUBLICATIONS Det "Rast Bor 1997 secsno Be 1999 “Toman Bee 2008 Fox Ben, 2016 ‘Sombra 2014 year Borns, 2016, oet2007 18 Price + © 310.00 ISBN: 97E81-935556-06 AtRighs Revert Nopateeheworkmay bcp reprodice. pe 1 ited oredimccoputer eens af Ponca By Ascin Pomcaross 2129, Suskri Nasi DES racten x 8, OFFSET, DELM. CONTENTS ‘Guuprent. nmaooucon: Derwerion NaTURE AND Score Pipette taw tot inj its lon 6 sn tins ity ta eo Law Tne? 8 | Set ech he are Destiy Sus nt oe ued be 17 i Sonal ondton ean are 72 | rssh crear 898 Boma ne at \ cobain ne ay 27 | ‘ioc aenann oust) 33 (Chapter 2. Derevces Acansr TornousLuaury <~ Nok Nen Fin (Oster ef Conse) 40398 Cisne 6757 sare etn ‘ate Gos “v8 Met 59 ecety 57 ‘Sutton ery 18 (Chapren 3. Necucence “nssesoMegigees «oY Migs Cesen ohegonnce 4 onto Rogignca 73 Fos po Lanutr Poet Hepiyenco) 66719 eines tnegionne 94 oo Poti Listy fr aptgencs tits Negi Batam or Bie?” 14-18 (Chapter 4, NeRvous Suocx onus Steck Reetonaby Fxesnsle Comoouane of Westonee 1 Charren S, Reworeness oF Danae ovtarens ALraan 9 anAsion ot Nogioce 122 ‘tof arenes of Damage 135 ‘Whentte Denages Bau Yovhoren 6, No Fauur Lianurry: Sreict ano Apsoture LABWury ‘wertaoty 2 Soci rc 151 Setcanr sts Rennie 0 ‘itinte Carr racsine ecens) 14 fatcauyinurpa nt “Sedan reyanarnsn heb ae se ‘Chapren 7. Vicarious Linakiry mcLUDNG STATE LABIETY ~~ ay ovaing oo Seca Retonalp 178 ‘esse er 180 Viewou sti oft Sao 180 208 ‘Doce of Soman nant 184 5 ‘ere Un Peao ein ST Un Carton of a Ft Boj 856 208 ‘Tots ConmsainEajene ota ules 27? ‘Chapter 8. Deramarion G/M aa rm, cess mem acon rot ae emma Oauitn 248 a ChapTeR 9. Nusaice alte ti it esac) 21 Defra to Nuoanen 254 ‘Ataturk of Neses 258 ‘Oster teen Nisan ard Negigrce. 250.258 (Crneten 10. Conremutory ano Commosre Necticence Cent Heinen 260 "he et Opera Re 257 Tectia Cnreutor Helens 370 Gonyena nesignen te Ueto otwon Conpaate a Contin Negigece 274 JontTaraaagey 278 (Cuseren 14, TRESPASS To Person ano| ve SS aT Sn eee es Ta a rahedon Teepaue Poe 202 Sie ee isineontatoor Tepe and Conon 362 (Crupren 12. Maucious Prosecunon ano Conseinacy “Tsuneo ee “a COLSCSOOSSCCECEOEOOOBEE 9.000 Graeten 13. Occuren’s Lasusry ron DanoerousPRewsss ‘Shigwon wovare vant Vato 7 ‘Srcioes adohing Motions 224 ‘onus onards Tespatters 322 ‘ttgnoe twarae Chen 224 Crores 14, Reneoes m Tors enn f bwvegen (aso i hiran 28 Fremocie aa nti Camas 330, ane pci Drone 38 Somoes Poser) 32 reine 338 ‘Siete ot ‘Chupren 15. Consuater Provecnon Act nate vy Coneune Ae 347 eee bacenconcas #0 ote ate Precen a Src bose Consarar Depo Rast ome #7 i ‘TABLE OF CASES a IAC Raine Revers tata Set 252 ea iy Haane Crasbe 0 bays Kaur Papas RE 86.259 ‘os w comsbury Heath Atnt 49 ‘aria Bapu vam xan 60 Dwar ua wAy Kar 280 ‘aton oeonge 202 ‘aievortan Gar Pe 8 ‘aan v Great sor Ry 77 8 ‘ais as Empat veda, Co Ls. 96 roy ats Law of Torts Addenda Desiing the tue whether statemens made tothe Ivf authorities an bs tad grouod for defamation, in te case Of Fame) Surudea ‘Nath + Gagtshwar! ra. (AIR 1961 Dat TGs), it was cheered: IE a son who makes the attement has a incest or dy, egal, ste ‘or moral to fake if the person to whom is rade, and te pose {0 whom ics 0 made has as creesponding infeert ot Guy to recive i, such stateroent commande a privlge scanner be male bis oF sh aoton Tor detamtion has been helé in Siri Ram Singh Bara v Smt. Sharan Promic 133 006) DLT 126, that “A'compluit o's lawful autheey fmt scionable If is aot ‘defamatory por se unless ite sealed et the ‘somglhit is fake and defamatory. Th, tal bfore the cout oly isnot established tat the FIR in question ie based on fave allegion, to action fs even maintainable” Fuster, with eg tothe vierous lability ofthe eitr, printer ‘pubs the Dent High Court fo Mock Gown v See (VET. OF Deity (rl M.C, 4037/2008 desde on 0405 200] eld thas “Besides pewsons declred as Edt, Printer and Publisher of a newspapers ony ‘ich perion could be prosected for an action of defamation apt ‘whom specifi and clea allegation ha been tad inte complaint tht sither ne was responsible far selection ofthe defunstory rater otal Pesonal knowlege about the content of the deamstoy: tastes It ‘don, i must alo be averted inthe complaint that such person hd {he inion to rn or knowedge oy reset believe that the patton Will harm the reputation of the complet, Toe Chairman or the Maragiog Direcior of the company ovning « sewpuper is nthe the Baier nt the Pino noe the Eiht at thetetore no presumption could be dew nga baer of tse fees, even though they ar, by reson ofthe offices held ty thom, in charge ‘of and responsible to, the company Tor the conte of is business Introduction Law of torts is a system of laws; which eaables @ person who bas sffred arm or injury by the acts of another, o claim damages in a chil sul, [Evolution of Law of Torts in England and india “The essential’ natre of the law of torts s that Its not codified tke atts ows. The la of tts a Indias based on Enplih Common la, hich isthe product of judicial decisions. In Rat Musiipal Corp ¥y Manjulben Jayaital Nokum (1997) 9 SCC. 552, the cout observe tothe absence of stattory In in regard to trios Habillty in Tas, the common law principles evolved in England may be applied in Indio to the exten of stability and applicability tothe Indias cendtins.” ‘There is very litle leiltion in the aren of tort in Eni, elsewiere inthe world, The reason is simpe- tortuous Habit can aise Jn-a number of ways and the number is 0 large that it fe almost limposibe to specify each and every act on the pat of the defendant ‘who may te made lable for dammges. In recent tines, some pars of the lw oF torts have been code, viz. The Workmen's Compensition ‘Ac, The Employers Liability Act, ee. Also avs relatingo defamation, Tibi et: have boon famed Unlike Esgiand, there ery itl tor Histon in the sons, being nek of constotsness abut one's gs and the sist of laaion, problem of recognition of te action by courts, and, awarding of ery Tow damages. Thes, numerous eases of injury in tain like lawful 2 Lawot Torts “etetion, injury to or te death of people due to adulterated foodstut, ior, medicine, oo, las duc o power et, nse and ctor pollution ft are put up witht bringing an action in a court of law Ferme of Action In Engieh Low Under the English fay, there were thee diferent clases of action= ‘Real, Pesonal and Mixed Inrealatons, the plantain rights rover lands, tenements aod beredtaments In personal actions, the plaintiT eaimel a deb, oF Sight fo recover a ciate of claimed damages for injury done to his person or property. Mad actions partook of the nature of bot Personal setons were: Deb, covenant assump trespas, datos, seplovin and tower. Define wat the form of action for the recovery ‘of specific goods wroneflly detained, or thse value, and also damages ‘orasionedby ther deerion. Rep asthe ation 0 recover specific {ods which bad either boon wrongfully distainod fen the pai oF iad been wrongly taken out of his possession Anagtion of rover as originally the remedy to recover damages agaist the person who had found goods and refed to deliver them {up on demand to the plan. In course of time, i became he form ‘of actlon where the plsintff sought to recover chmages from the ‘Sefendant who had converted the pls goods t his own use and fame to be kxowa as an detlon of conversion. Purpote/Function of the Law of Tortst “The law of tots exists for the purpose of preventing men fom hurting cone another, whether in respect of their property, ther persons, their reputation, or anything else whic is thes [Jayant Slt orks Pit Lid v State of Gxjart (1994) 4 SCC I. “The fnéamentalplsipe ofthis branch ofthe aw isalterum non Iaadere- to at nobody by word oe deed. An action oF tor therefore Gra iega tr eomage ootowe® Ouse” RS Czone ‘Gaeewinsocny Saawes enon Taso Intrcduction: Definition Nature & Scope 3 ‘is usualy a claim for pecuniary compensation in eesrect of damage Suffered 1s the result of the invasion of a Igally prtecod ints. However the 1a of tr fil to provige adequately fort injury other ‘han physical, dane maliciously or carelessly In Rake Municipal Corpn.v Manjulben Sayatilal Naku (1997) 9 SCC 552, the apex court obsorved: “The fw of tort prevents hating ‘one another Altes consist of violation of aright inthe plait. Tort lay, therefore, is pulmarlly evolved to compensate the injured by ‘compelling the wrongder 0 pay’ forthe damage done. Since isibutve Tansee ara an inevitable by-product of modern living in allocating the tis, the law of tort makes less asd Tess allowance to punishment, ‘émmoniton and deterence found in eiminal last, The purpose ofthe Inw of tris to adjust theve losses and offer compeaseton for injuries by one person as & result of another's conduct However, the law could not attempt to compensate all. losses ‘Suck an sim would not only be over ambitious but mignt conflict wth ‘sie notions of socal pole. Socety has no interest in more sbifing of lass between individuals for ite oom sake. The loss, by hypothesis ‘may’ve already occured, end whatever benef might be desived from ‘epairing, the fortunes of one person ie exactly offert by the ha ‘used through taking that amount vay fiom another. The evonomic sss ofthe community do ot inerate and expense ts incurred inthe oes of realization” “curity and stability are generally aceopted as worhvhile socal objets, but there is no inherent reason for peering the security and Stability of plains to these of defendants. Hene, shifting of los fe Jase ony wen tote ext special eseons for ring the defendant to bear it rather than the plain on whom it happens 1 have fale.” In the presen ease, the deoasod while walking an the Toompath of = Public road sock by a rdsige toe suddenly fling on him in sil "weather eondion; the munsipal corporation wis bel to be ot nepligent fand thus not liable for dasages, Interests Protocted by tho Law of Torts. (@ Personal and proprotary ince i) Reputation tel and slander (i) Iteratein economic relations: conspiracy, psig of, declt, ,2 SOS COCKS ROHSCHHBLEOREHOOHOR s , 4 Law ot torte, Gy) Incerests in family eelations eg. extent 10 which the parents may sue i respect of injuries to thee etilren, (Interference with juclalprocess- malicious prosecution. (i) Miscellaneous interests eg, right 10 vote. Remedios in Tort Remedies for tort are of two kind Feil and Ext julia. Judea remedies are those which are alforded by the act of lavy viz. (I) wanting of damages; 2) gaming of injunction; and (3) restution of oper). Bxraysedcil remedies are thowe which ae available t0-2 partyin cermin cases of torts by his own aes alone vis. expulsion of 4 trespasser, eenty on land, r-ception of goods, dstess damage Jeasant, abatement of musanoe Ina tort, esis ‘damages’, the court may alto grant injunction” to the plain to prevent a continuous nuisance, Thus, an function nay be granted to prevent tespas, ar the continuance of» nuisance to right of way, t© markets; or the infringement of copyrights and ttademare; othe publieation of libel the uring of slander, oF the disclosure of eonf-deatal commeniestions o the wrongtal ale or dotetion of a chattel te, “specific restitution of propery ie anther remedy ia ox. When | the plaintiff has been wrengflly spensesed of his movable ad immovable proper, the court my eer thatthe Specie po should be restored back to the plaintiff. proves Nature and Detieition of Tort? 1No frcise or scenic dofinition of “ton” has boon ned 30 fi The French word ort” has been dedved ftom the Latin term “Tort! ‘whieh mebns 10 ist Thus i implies a conduct, whichis not law bu mer i i twisted, crooked oF untaful. Ris equivalent the Sitedinedaa he tow, "(ou oSasaatoimens (aboard isa? Gace Seiten of Vid snp tte sarcoma Canjou ge setar atetion of at Uerseouseeaeae English term ‘wrong’ the Roman term “deli, and, the Sanskrit word Tin. ‘torts walation ofa righ of a person! breach of dity by one person towards another, For example, violation of @ uty ot to injure the seputition of romeane else results in the tort of defamation, The fit reported case where the cour wied the word “tor is: Boulton ¥ Hardy (1897, Cro. Eliz. $4). In Joyal’ Salt Works Poe tad ‘Store of Guiaat (1998) 4 SCC 1, the apex court observed: “Tort ‘means "breach of duly eacing to darage, The sme meaning itn tan gona, for consnts of some act done without just ese or excuse. [No scenic definition of “tort” has yet emenged 29 fi, because the Jew of tort is based om judicial decisions and because of diverse species of wrongs inluded under it each having its own peculiar Fistrial beskpround. Above all, the law of tot i sll inthe process ‘of development. In Jayalakshmi case, the cout observed thatthe base ingredients of lots ae ijury and damage de o fire t observe dy “The Lai intertmay be “ait Hiab “asolue Hlabiiy” or "special es binging with ft ncreaod dangers to others” (lands v Blecher) fr fault alt”. Sach Hib iver sis to action intr. Since daty isthe primary yardstick to determine the tortious ibility ts ambit keeps ‘on widening oa the touchstone of fame, practicality ofthe situation, ‘Some ofthe definitions of tor’ are: Sec, ln), The Limitation At, 1963- “Tort means a lvl wrong which Ts mot exalsively a breach of contactor breach oF tt” ‘Salmon. “Iisa civil wrong foe which the remedy isa common law ‘ction for unligated damages and which isnot exclusively the breach of cont or the breach of a trust or other rnerely equitable obligation.” Proven. “itisaninlagement of aright in rom of private individu fving » ght of compensation othe suit ofthe injured pay” Pollock “Bvery tr isan act or emission (oot being mete the ‘reach of & cuty arse out of @ personal elation, or ‘undertaken by contract) Which is celated fo harm (heir 6 Law of Forts there be measurable actual damage of not, sured by determinate person" Thus tay beat act nite corey to law, or an omision of speci legal dy, ich causes hares not intended by & person so acting oe omiging, “Tortiosfabiliy arises fom the breach of au peinaity find ty the ln this dy is towands persons wencrall at its breach is redressible by an action for unliquidated damages” Lord Deng. The province of tr i to allocate responsibilty for Iwiows conduct.” ‘Keeton &Kector- “Tot law isa body of law concerved with granting ‘or denying chins of individuals or inpersonl legal eaten ‘guns each other for avard of damages or hee forms of legal tie” ota. Analysis of Wintel Dettaition® ‘The definition given ty Winieté deserves special memton uit is more substance compared to those of ether authers Hovevee, it hs some shortcomings, Wz, |. The defrition eamot be accept as enirely accreting {his defiition, Wintel was not seking to inicate wa cond 4s and what is not sufficient 0 Involve a person in tortuous abi, tat mesely to dsinguish on rom certain cher branches Of law. This, the definition doesn’® mention various elements te presence of which could be considered tbe a tore The Angligcatly or deliberately fit another wih a stick or where an ‘operation is osuceessful because of segeon's negligence, the efendant cannot plead volentt now fit injura because Abe plait ever consented to an injury h that manner. Tae act tee 2 a 4 Law of Torts ‘causing Use harm must not go Beyond the Limit oF what has ben consented Af rato » Osbcone (slight ca"), wile plait husband ant ie, ere in a shop. skylight in the roof wis Woke owing to reflipence ofthe contract. "Tfe pas fit an injured the husband, His wife while tying to pall im sind he eg Hold hat both he plats Were ented to camages the wife war held eile ism a at she di way, in the cemstances, raul proper ting 0. In. Balobrtahiian senor v TR. Subramanian (AIR 1986 Ket 181, during the Pooram celebrations shih wore aended ty aks of people, the explosion caused hy igniting explisve-powier ie cocenat ‘tells seriously injced the pal. I was-establishe tate iny was caused by the negligence of the defendants (servants of the contactors) who did ol propery checked the explosive. The defendants nee eld liable The defendants ended tha the pai wis a volunioee find hat he had come to watch the celebrations fly knowing and lo {ly aware of the risk involved, thus the axim applies The cour rejected this contention on the ground th the lakhs of people who ome to watch the eslebratons could hot be eafled soltees to te Yisks, There was hardly any likelhcod of such possiblliies ff the ‘mployeps had been carofl in handling he explosives fore during the couse of gymnastics taining, «schoolboy was required to vault over a horse and he landed in &sfumble and wos injured, the instuctor in charge doing nothing to salt hisvin landing ‘rope, it was held to be a case of pure negligence. Therefore, the maxis THe does ct apply. ny. RescyGasgeh When the pain volunatty takes a isk oven Eh 6 reseus somebody Woo nee HaNge ested ———— moterneetie Dasaeroy was 4 police afteal? " (BUavowr01%, [Spypre wt ecu The ers be Defences ageinst Torttous Liability ” by the vrongfil act of the defendant, he cannot be met with the defence oF vole on nr. ‘The.sy of disines s the summons fo sell A man cannot Pe deemed fo have given real content if he acte-under the ‘compulsion at Tegel or Sis) 2 moral di Lesome Cast: HAYES ¥:NARWOOD" (Crotice constante's case") (936) 4 8. 246) In his ease, the defendant's servant left a (woutorse van unten ina set A police esnstbl, the pli, wo wos ‘on dy, sw the runaway horses coming down the sree. Soin grave dana ta wornan and chien he Yock the risk afd ‘managed fo sp the owes, but the proces he was seriously Sure tongs arm case ns onto tapas ot cope AT Se eA eit Lordships cbserved that as the defendants must or ‘ug o have contemplated that someone might stem to stop the horses in an enddavour to step injury #0 le, the act of and ‘njiest the plait were the natal end prole consequence ‘uryror pile, or ihe exersse ih such a case Teaves fo {Sor cing a hed Pry dbs 1 ae WS Be ower a Saty oF re seanger © ooston bai oh tie cat, fou-20%, ‘a ae boy aga soe 4 yours wos erp aa ene, soos ty the ‘he lear inset to benane goer el To {5 tan Saag no fe sb guts ougron flan ann Secs in ase Stans emigre was gest ces inne he detocaet mipivn send cy oa fereach dur eed mera os nasi oft or wee atte Onde chen CPecon, one Spee, hn ace bees a ————————_— of defendant's negligence. In rescue cases it ie immaterial Water te plain std delay fon a ae of moral A D7 tewertonte Foweves, a person who is ijure in an atterpt to stop 1 horse which erates no danger will be without a remedy = ‘Goren Tine Davia) acosed oe} In Wagner v International Ratway (1921) 232 NLX. 176, a railway passenger was thrown oof" the running railwsy car due to the negligence ofthe railway company. When the car stoped, his compasion fot down wo search hs fiend. There was darknes, the rescuer missed Nis Tooting and fell down the tvidge resulting in injures to hi. He brought an action againt the ralway company. Held, that it belng a case of rescue the ralvay company was Tale In Raker v TE. Hopkins & Son (1989) 3 All ER 25, due to the employers negligence a well as filled with poisoncus fumes of petol driven punp and two of his workmen who were reconsiucting {he well were overcome ty fumes. Dr. Baker was called but he vas told to emer the well in view of the sk involved. Ds, Boker etered the well despite the ie with the view to help the twodworkmen, Ingwever fame too overcame him. He died on way 1 the esp Hel, that th ace ofthe rescuer ste tural and probable consequence of the defendants wrongfil act which the later gould have foreseen and therefore the maxim doesnot apply. It would erally be @ sange the lw were held to poze to the courage ofthe rescuer by Erving bins of any remedy Te defendants wer thie ald ible yids “Brnsh Transport Coniston (1963) QB 650, fected by the defences, Which against the vitin eg contibutory-nepigens® Of The person by his negligence puts himself in danger and dhs, fncther pean), The reicter in such a ease can claim daaages In Haynes ¥ Harwood also applies in cess or oneself [Hye v Great Westom Ralivay 1948) 13 Conract Terns Het, TO77 CEngla- See. 2 of the Act enchade islinlty ing from bis negligence by contact tem, of by nti ‘There Ht # complete ban on & pesson’s right to exclude his Defences against Tortious Liability a lnbitty for death or personal injury resulting from nelipence, by a contract term optic In other case, excision of possible only if sucha term or nie fe contract term or noice pixpots to exclude ibility for negligence, person's agreement to = of isnot of to © be taken as indicating his voluntary acceptance of any risk, Thus, Sec. 2 is another Tinton tothe maxim vel non fi nia, (2) Plainutt the Wrontdosr “he mere fst thatthe plait himsetis the wrongdoer doesnot

    You might also like