Tortious Inference and

Types of Torts
PSDA
Submitted to- Ms. Nipun Gupta Jain

Submitted by- Mokshit

Second Semester, Section-C
Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
 Introduction
 Tort- A tort, in common law jurisdiction, is a civil wrong(other than breach
of contract) that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal
liability for the person who commits the tortious act. It can include
intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, financial losses,
injuries, invasion of privacy, and many other things. The word 'tort' stems
from Old French via the Norman Conquest and Latin via the Roman Empire.
 Throughout its long history, tort has pursued different aims: punishment,
appeasement, deterrence, compensation, and efficient loss spreading of the
cost of accidents. None offers a complete justification; all are important,
though at different stages one may have been more prominent than the rest.
 Types of
Torts

Defamation Assault and

Battery

Negligence Nuisance
 Defamation
 Defamation is the oral or written communication of a false statement about another
that unjustly harms their reputation and usually constitutes a tort or crime. Under
common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and must
have been made to someone other than the person defamed. Some common law
jurisdictions also distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander, and
defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel. In the
United States, false light laws protect against statements which are not technically
false but are misleading. In some jurisdictions, defamation is also treated as a crime.
 It has two types Slander and Libel.
 Defamation laws may come into tension with freedom of speech, leading to
censorship or chilling effects where publishers fear lawsuits. Article 10 of the
European Convention on Human Rights permits restrictions on freedom of speech
when necessary to protect the reputation or rights of others. Jurisdictions resolve this
tension in different ways, in particular in determining where the burden of proof lies
when unfounded allegations are made. The power of the internet to disseminate
comment, which may include malicious comment, has brought a new focus to the
issue. There is a broader consensus against laws that criminalize defamation
 Negligence
 Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care
expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort
law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of
carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of
negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by
taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to
other people or property.

 Someone who suffers loss caused by another's negligence may be able to sue
for damages to compensate for their harm. Such loss may include physical
injury, harm to property, psychiatric illness, or economic loss. The law on
negligence may be assessed in general terms according to a five-part model
which includes the assessment of duty, breach, actual cause, proximate
cause, and damages.
 Nuisance
 Nuisance, in law, a human activity or a physical condition that is harmful or offensive to others
and gives rise to a cause of action. A public nuisance created in a public place or on public
land, or affecting the morals, safety, or health of the community, is considered an offense
against the state. Such activities as obstructing a public road, polluting air and water,
operating a house of prostitution, and keeping explosives are public nuisances. A private
nuisance is an activity or condition that interferes with the use and enjoyment of neighbouring
privately owned lands, without, however, constituting an actual invasion of the property.
Thus, excessive noise, noxious vapours, and disagreeable odours and vibrations may constitute
a private nuisance to the neighbouring landowners, although there has been no physical
trespass on their lands.
 While a public nuisance, as such, is actionable only by the state, through criminal proceedings,
injunction, or physical abatement, the same activity or conduct may also create a private
nuisance to neighbouring landowners and thus result in a civil suit. The conduct of a business in
violation of a zoning ordinance creates a public nuisance, but it also may be actionable as a
private nuisance by neighbours who can prove a decrease in the market value of their homes as
a result, because a private nuisance is based upon interference with the use and enjoyment of
land, it is actionable only by persons who have a property interest in such land. If the
interference merely makes the use and enjoyment less comfortable, without inflicting physical
damage to the land, the courts consider the character of the neighbourhood to determine
whether the activity or condition is an unreasonable interference. An activity that causes
physical damage to neighbouring land, however, will be held to be an actionable nuisance
irrespective of the character of the neighbourhood. Such cases usually involve vibrations that
cause walls to crack or noxious vapours that destroy vegetation.
 Assault and Battery
 Assault and battery, related but distinct crimes, battery being the unlawful application of physical
force to another and assault being an attempt to commit battery or an act that causes another
reasonably to fear an imminent battery. These concepts are found in most legal systems and
together with manslaughter and murder are designed to protect the individual from rude and
undesired physical contact or force and from the fear or threat thereof.
 No minimum degree of force is necessary to constitute a battery. A mere touch is sufficient. And
force need not be applied directly. It is battery if one strikes a person’s cane or horse, administers
poison or drugs, or communicates a disease.

 An accident or ordinary negligence that results in injury is not criminally punishable as battery unless
it occurred during the commission of another unlawful offense. Generally, one does not commit
battery unless one acts with intent to harm or with gross criminal negligence involving a high degree
of carelessness. Even then such action may be justified if it is for the purpose of the defense of
others or of property, or if it is in self-defense. Reasonable force may be used in the performance of
duty, as, for example, by a police officer, without constituting battery.
 Assault is a crime of attempt, the purpose of the law being to deter a possible battery by punishing
conduct that comes dangerously close to achieving a battery. As with most crimes of attempt, a
clear line cannot be drawn between a criminal assault and conduct that is merely preparatory to an
assault. There must be an intent to harm, but the intent is not sufficient if it produces the mere
possibility of harm or the threat of battery in the distant future. Rather, the intent must be
evidenced by an imminent danger, some overt act that threatens battery. Thus, words or intentions
alone do not constitute assault.
 Tortious Inference
 Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with
contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person
intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships
with a third party, causing economic harm. A tort of negligent
interference occurs when one party's negligence damages the contractual or
business relationship between others, causing economic harm, such as, by
blocking a waterway or causing a blackout that prevents the utility company
from being able to uphold its existing contracts with consumers.
 Tortious interference with contract rights can occur when one party
persuades another to breach its contract with a third party (e.g. using
blackmail, threats, influence, etc.) or where someone knowingly interferes
with a contractor's ability to perform his contractual obligations, preventing
the client from receiving the services or goods promised (e.g., by refusing to
deliver goods). The tortfeasor is the person who interferes with the
contractual relationship between others. When a tortfeasor is aware of an
existing contract and deliberately induces a breach by one of the contract
holders, it is termed "tortious inducement of breach of contract."
 Tortious interference with business relationships occurs where the tortfeasor
intentionally acts to prevent someone from successfully establishing or
maintaining business relationships with others. This tort may occur when one
party knowingly takes an action that causes a second party not to enter into a
business relationship with a third party that otherwise would probably have
occurred. An example is when a tortfeasor offers to sell a property to someone
below market value knowing they were in the final stages of a sale with a third
party pending the upcoming settlement date to formalize the sale writing. Such
conduct is termed "tortious interference with a business expectancy.”

 Historically, there has not been actionable cause if the interference was merely
negligent. However, for some jurisdictions recognize such claims, although many
do not. A tort of negligent interference occurs when one party's negligence
damages the contractual or business relationship between others, causing
economic harm, such as, by blocking a waterway or causing a blackout preventing
the utility company from being able to uphold its existing contracts with
consumers.

 Typical legal damages for tortious interference include economic losses, if they
can be proven with certainty, and mental distress. Additionally punitive damages
may be awarded if malice on the part of the wrongdoer can be established.
 Conclusion
 With the business environment in India being predatory, it is essential that a
robust and comprehensive law relating to economic torts is promulgated
recognising that contractual obligations are sacrosanct and cannot be skewed to
a party's advantage. While the courts in India have recognised that parties have a
right with respect to Tortious Interference in cases discussed above, due to the
lacuna in the law, the rights have not been enforced by the courts.
 A shortcoming in cases of Tortious Interference is that most often not all
requirements that are prescribed to hold a party liable for tortious acts are met
by the factual scenario of a case. Therefore, though the courts recognise the
principle, they refrain from taking affirmative action. This is also due to lack of
any authority on the subject thereby making the outcome of the cases vague and
unsatisfactory to set precedent. Another procedural shortcoming is that there is
no threshold to decide what level of interference will be actionable, thereby
making the adjudicatory process more complex. There is an urgent need for the
legislature to enact newer laws in this regard or make relevant amendments
thereby better recognising the tort of Tortious Interference.
THANK YOU