unit 2 torts.pdf

IS IT LAW OF TORT OR LAW OF TORTS? Priya Kumari  1 SALMOND’S QUESTIONS (i)Is it the Law of Tort i.e., is every wrongful act, for which there is no justification or excuse, is to be treated as a tort? or (...

IS IT LAW OF TORT OR LAW OF TORTS? Priya Kumari  1 SALMOND’S QUESTIONS (i)Is it the Law of Tort i.e., is every wrongful act, for which there is no justification or excuse, is to be treated as a tort? or (ii) Is it the Law of Torts, consisting only of a number of specific wrongs beyond which the liability under this branch of law cannot arise?  2 SALMOND’S PREFERENCE There is no general principle of tortious liability and if the plaintiff can place the wrong committed against him in any of the pigeon holes, each containing a labeled tort, he will succeed in claiming damages from the defendant. This theory is also known as Pigeon Hole Theory/Law of Torts. If there is no pigeon hole in which the plaintiff’s case could fit in, the defendant has committed no tort.  3 WINFIELD’S PREFERENCE Winfield preferred the first of these alternatives and according to him, it is the Law of Tort. According to this theory, if I injure my neighbor, he can sue me in tort whether the wrong happens to have any particular name like assault, battery, slander, or whether it has no special title at all; and I shall be liable if I cannot offer a lawful justification.  4 BUT IS IT THAT SIMPLE? Each theory seems to have received some support. In 1702, Ashby v. White, was decided in favour of the first theory. Change in Winfield’s stand: In this case, the principle ubi jus ibi In the words of Winfield, “From the remedium was recognized. It was held narrow and practical point of view, the second theory will suffice, but that “If a man receives multiple injuries, from the broader outlook, the first actions must be multiplied too: for every one is valid”. man who is injured ought to be compensated for every injury which he has suffered.” Other examples include introduction of Strict Liability/Absolute liability.