Nature of Tortious Liability:

Under the tort liability law, in other words also known as "the law of
negligence", a person is considered liable for committing a tort, if they
have failed to satisfy the standard of care - a standard determined by the
behavior of a reasonably prudent individual.

The tortfeasor's actions are measured against the actions of a reasonably

prudent person, and they are found to be below-standard, the individual
is guilty of negligence.

The tort liability law applies mainly to unintentional torts. In the case of
intentional torts and strict liability torts, the defendant is found guilty
regardless of negligence. If a wrongful act is done deliberately, the
possibility of negligence is ruled out automatically. In strict/absolute
liability, the person responsible for causing harm is found guilty of
wrongdoing, regardless of whether they are negligent or not. In order for
a victim of a tort to file a legal claim in tort and receive compensation
for their injuries or property damage, the following elements of
negligence must be satisfied

There must be a duty imposed by law for the protection of other

individuals against harm. Without the existence of this legal duty of
care, the plaintiff cannot collect damages.
 
Another requirement that has to be met in tort claims is the breach of
the duty of care. If the tortfeasor falls short of meeting the standard of
the legal duty of care for others, whether by wrongdoing, or by failure to
act, then the 'breach of duty" requirement is satisfied.
 
Evidence of incurred harm has to be provided by the claimant. In order
to satisfy this requirement, the claimant has to have suffered bodily
injuries or property damages and furnish proof thereof. There are a
number of damages that the plaintiff can be compensated by:
Compensatory damages - including special damages and general
damages - reimburse the plaintiff for losses that can be documented, and
for losses that cannot be measured, such as pain and suffering.
 
Punitive damages - punish the tortfeasor by making an example out if
them.
 
There must be a proximate cause relationship between the breach of
duty and damages inflicted by it.
 
 
Liability of State of Under Law of Tort:
 
The subject of torts originates in the idea of hurt or damage done by
force. The early history of the law of torts, after its separation from
criminal law, is embraced in the history of the action of trespass.
Trespasses early were divided into several distinct actions, or perhaps it
would be more accurate to say that trespass was the combination of
these several actions. In all of these branches of the action, however, we
see present the element of force or violence. In trespass quire classism
freight, there is the forcible entry upon or damage to the land; in trespass
de bones aspartates, there is the forcible taking and carrying away of the
goods of another; while in trespass to the person the violence is directed
against the person of the injured party. For indirect damages or for
damages unaccompanied with violence to a person's body, land or
personal property, or for such damages as those to his reputation there
could be no relief under the action of trespass, and there was no relief
under any form of action until near the close of the thirteenth century.
Right of action for injuries which cannot be brought within the scope of
trespass owe their origin to the famous Statute of Westminster II 36
passed in 1285. Under the authority of this statute there was created the
new action of Case, or of Trespass on the Case which with trespass
covers the whole field of torts.
The most common view of the history of  tort law is that it grew from
those duties imposed upon actions that caused physical harm, regardless
of fault, and expanded from there to determine more refined moral
standards of general liability, but not everyone would agree. Some early
quotes are "the thought of man shall not be tried for the devil himself
knoweth not the thought of man and "in all civil acts, the law doth not so
much regard the intent of the actor, as the loss and damage of the party
suffering".
Early post-Norman England required writs, which cost money, in order
to bring a defendant to court. There were a limited number of very
specific writs.
Two writs of specific historic interest are the writ of trespass, and the
writ of action on the case. Historically tort had its roots in criminal
procedure. Even today there is a punitive element in some aspects of the
rules on damages. However, tort is a species if civil injury or wrong. The
distinction between civil and criminal wrongs depends on the nature of
the remedy provided by law. A civil wrong is one which gives rise to
civil proceedings. A civil proceeding concerns with the enforcement of
some right claimed by the plaintiff as against the defendant whereas
criminal proceedings have for their object the punishment of the
defendant for some act of which he is accused. Sometimes the same
wrong is capable of being made the subject of proceedings of both kinds.
For example, assault, libel, theft, malicious injury to property etc. in
such cases the wrong doer may be punished criminally and also
compelled in a civil action to make compensation or restitution.
Not every civil wrong is a tort. A civil wrong may be labeled as a tort
only where the appropriate remedy for it is an action for unliquidated
damages. Thus, for example, public nuisance is not a tort merely
because the civil remedy of injunction may be available at the suit of the
attorney general, but only in those exceptional cases in which a private
person may recover damages for loss sustained by him in consequence
thereof. However, it has to be born in mind that a person is liable in tort
irrespective of whether or not an action for damages has been given
against him. The party is liable from the moment he commits the tort.
Although an action for damages is an essential mark of tort and its
characteristic remedy, there may be and often other remedies also.
 
Torts is also one kind of suffering or interruption in peaceful living or
enjoyment of one’s life or property. In the concept of modern state or
welfare state, a state is pressured to ensure each and every requirement
for a peaceful living of her citizens. Though torts are the two individuals
and usually state don’t have active presence in these case, in broader
sense a state can’t black herself out totally from these disputes. To be a
complete welfare state, a state should have association or cooperation in
every part of her citizen’s life. An ethical question may arise here in case
of fleeing tradition of state in the mater of committed torts among her
citizens. So, state can’t be completely immune from the liability of torts
of her dwellers. The liabilities may ethical or it can also be backed by
law as well.

Law of Torts in Bangladesh:

In Bangladesh tort law in not introduced yet. In Bangladesh penal code,
civil procedure code, criminal procedure code there are short application
of tort law. From the above case studies, it is clear that it is very
essential for a country to adopt tort law. Country like India, Sri Lanka,
Nepal, USA, and UK adopted tort law.
The context of the law of tort in particular one tort, has dominated the
development of the common law of torts in the twentieth and twenty-
first centuries, namely, the tort of negligence and its specific off-shoots
relating to Employer’s liability, Occupiers’ liability, Liability for
animals and Product liability. The key feature of the tort of negligence is
that it attributes responsibility on the basis of principles of personal fault
that require individuals to adhere to a standard of reasonable care. A
general feature of the tort of negligence is that, for the most part, it is
concerned with actions that cause physical harm, although there is a
growing body of case law that also attributes responsibility for acts that
cause foreseeable economic harm.
Despite the dominance of the tort of negligence, there are other torts,
which seek to protect other interests. There is group of torts, as trespass
to the person, which focus on personal integrity and may, to an extent,
be relevant to the issue of individual privacy. Tort law also recognizes
the interests and responsibilities of land owners, seeking to balance the
right of a landowner to use his land as he wishes, against the right of
neighbors to expect landowners to operate and maintain their land in a
reasonable manner. Other torts protect both personal and business
reputations. Thus, it is a tort to defame a person by seeking,
intentionally, to lower that person’s reputation in the mind of right-
thinking persons generally. In relation to chattels and business interests,
there is a range of diverse torts, broadly based on intentional conduct
that protects the interests of a person who owns or is in possession
against deliberate interference by others and torts that guard against
conspiracy and inducement of another to commit a breach of contract.

CONCLUSION

“Truly speaking the entire law of torts is founded and structured on

morality. Therefore, it would be primitive to close strictly or close
finally the ever expanding and growing horizon of tortious liability.
Even for social development, orderly growth of the society and cultural
the liberal approach to tortious liability by court would be conducive.

Tort as we know today has evolved over the centuries and has grown
tremendously in countries such as the England, United States of
America, and other progressive countries and to a certain extent in India
and Bangladesh as well. The development of the absolute liability rule in
Multinational corporation Liability, recognition of Governmental tort by
employees of government, principles on legality of State, evolution of
tort of sexual harassment, grant of interim compensation to a rape
victim, and award of damages for violation of human rights under writ
jurisdiction. For example, There have been a number of enactments such
as the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, Environment Protection Act,
1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Human Rights Protection Act,
1998, Pre-Natal Diagnostics Techniques Regulations and Prevention of
Misuse Act, 1994, embodying the new principles of tortious liability in
India.
 
In Bangladesh, we have ignored to introduce the law of Tort in our legal
spectrum. We need specific codification of the law of Tort which can
insure not only ‘accesses to justice but insurance to ‘justice’.
Undoubtedly a code is useful, but it is well to recognize that this branch
of law is still in the process of growth and while it would be difficult to
prepare a code, it would not also help a proper development of the law to
do so. Following the instance of India where the law is also not codified,
the judges and the lawyers can play their contribution for the initial
growth of the law of Tort in Bangladesh.
Consideration should also pay for the assurance of proper justice. Failure
of aggrieved persons to assert their legal rights is perhaps to be ascribed
not merely to insufficient appreciation of such rights but to other causes
as well, e.g., difficulties in proving claims and obtaining trustworthy
testimony, high court fees, delay of courts. The elimination of
difficulties which obstruct aggrieved parties in seeking or obtaining
remedies which the law provides for them is a matter which is worthy of
consideration. Among other things, it is suggested that the court-fee
should be decreased to cause more cases to be entertained in the courts.
It has been desired that lawyers must take on themselves the
responsibility of educators of litigants from all walks of life, to enable
them to start right actions including actions for recovery of damages for
the injuries sustained.
If these lacunae are removed, Bangladesh would also witness a growth
in tort litigation.