Basics Law of Torts notes – CSEET
Basics Law of Torts:
ICSI CSEET: The Council of the ICSI has released a notice regarding CSEET on the day of the inauguration of ICSI Golden Jubilee Celebrations on 4th Oct 2017.
The Gazette Notification on the Company Secretaries (Amendment) Regulations, 2020 has been published on 3rd February 2020 in the Official Gazette of India and the same shall be applicable from the said date of publication.
Now ICSI Published a notice regarding CSEET Test which going to start from 2020 May.
We are now going to discuss the details of CSEET Paper-2 Legal Aptitude and Logical Reasoning – Basics Law of Torts notes
Basics Law of Torts:
The word ‘tort’ is a French equivalent of English word ‘wrong’. The word tort is derived from Latin word Tortum. Thus, simply stated ‘tort’ means wrong. But every wrong or wrongful act is not a tort. Tort is really a kind of civil wrong as opposed to criminal wrong. Wrongs, in law, are either public or private.
Broadly speaking, public wrongs are the violations of ‘public law and hence amount to be offences against the State, while private wrongs are the breaches of private law, i.e., wrongs against individuals. Public wrongs or crimes are those wrongs which are made punishable under the penal law belonging to the public law group.
“Tort” means a civil wrong which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of trust. The distinction between civil and criminal wrongs depends on the nature of the appropriate remedy provided by law.
Section 2(m) of the Limitation Act, 1963, states: “Tort means a civil wrong which is not exclusively a breach of contract or breach of trust.”
Salmond defines it as ”a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action for unliquidated damages and which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of a trust or other merely equitable obligation.”
Fraser describes it as “an infringement of a right in rem of a private individual giving a right of compensation at the suit of the injured party.”
Winfield says: “Tortious liability arises from the breach of duty, primarily fixed by law; this duty is towards persons generally and its breach is redressable by an action for unliquidated damages”.
Two important elements can be derived from l these definitions, namely: (i) that a tort is a species of civil injury of wrong as opposed to a criminal wrong, and (ii) that every civil wrong is not a tort. Accordingly, it is possible to distinguish tort from a crime and from a contract, a trust and a quasicontract. The distinction between civil and criminal wrongs depends on the nature of the appropriate remedy provided by law.
General Conditions of Liability for a Tort
As stated earlier, there is no fixed catalogue of circumstances, which along and for all-time mark the limit of what are torts. Certain situations have been held to be torts and will continue to be so in the absence of statutory repeal, and others have been held not to be torts. However, certain general conditions for tortuous liability can be laid down.
In general, a tort consists of some act or omission by the defendant (tortfeasor) whereby he has without just cause or excuse caused some harm to plaintiff. To constitute a tort, there must be:
- A wrongful act or omission of the defendant;
- The wrongful act must result in causing legal damage to another; and
- The wrongful act must be of such a nature as to give rise to a legal remedy
(i) Wrongful act : The act complained of, should under the circumstances, be legally wrongful as regards the party complaining. In other words, it should prejudicially affect any of the above mentioned interests, and protected by law. Thus, every person whose legal rights, e.g., right of reputation, right of bodily safety and freedom, and right to property are violated without legal excuse, has a right of action against the person who violated them, whether loss results from such violation or not.
(ii) Legal damages : It is not every damage that is a damage in the eye of law. It must be a damage which the law recognizes as such. In other words, there should be legal injury or invasion of the legal right. In the absence of an infringement of a legal right, an action does not lie. Also, where there is infringement of a legal right, an action lies even though no damage may have been caused. As was stated in Ashby v. White, (1703) 2 Ld. Raym. 938 legal damage is neither identical with actual damage nor is it necessarily pecuniary. Two maxims, namely: (i) Damnum sine injuria, and (ii) injuria sine damnum, explain this proposition.