TORT

ANSWER IN ONE/TWO SENTENCES

1) What do you mean by Felonious Torts?
A: Felonious Torts- When an Act amounts to both a tort and a crime (felony), it is called felonious
tort. For example, assault, defamation, malicious prosecution etc. In England, prior to 1967, the
doctrine of merger of tort is felony was applied. So, a suit under the law of torts could be filed, unless
the person first prosecuted in a criminal Court. In 1967, however, this rule was abolished in England.
In India, the rule of merger of tort in felony had never been accepted. So a person can always be
sued for a tort, although the Act also amounts to a crime, without first instituting criminal proceedings
against him.
2) What is wavier of tort?
A: There are some cases in which a party is allowed to treat that which is purely a tort, as having a
contract between himself and the wrong doer, and is allowed to waive his right to sue in tort, and
instead, pursue his remedy for breach of the supposed contract. Thus, if a man is wrongfully
deprived of his goods, which are afterwards sold away, he may bring an action for damages in tort,
or he may file a suit for the price received by the defendant. Such cases, are however, not many, and
when a man selects one remedy and waives the other, he is deemed to have made an election, and
he cannot afterwards pursue the remedy waived by him. It is also to be noted that the waiver may be
either express or implied.
3) What are the two kinds of torts?
A: Kinds of Torts- There are two kinds of torts- (i) Torts which are actionable per se, (i.e. without
proof of actual damage) In the case of tort which are actionable per se, the defendant is liable
merely because he does a particular Act, even though the plaintiff has not suffered the slightest
harm. The Act of trespassing on anothers land is actionable, even though the plaintiff does not suffer
the slightest harm and no actual damage is done to the law. So too, trespass to the person, even
though it is only a technical assault which causes no damage, gives rise to right of action. Similarly
libel is actionable per se. in these cases, the law conclusively presumes damage. (ii) Torts which are
actionable only on proof of actual damage - However, in the case of tort which are actionable only on
proof of actual damage, resulting thereform, the defendant will be held liable only if, in consequence
of his Act, damage is inflicted on the plaintiff. Thus, the tort of slander is, in most cases, not
actionable without proof of special damage.
4) Explain the maxim Ex trupi causea non oritus action?
A: The maxim Ex trupi causea non oritus action, means that no Act arises from an immoral or base
cause. That is to say, if the damage is in a manner tainted with immorality, no cause of action can be
maintained. For example, in Hegarty V. Shine (1878) P was infected by D, her paramour, with

venereal disease, the existence of which was concealed by D. It was held that P was not entitled to
sue D because an action does not arise from an immoral cause.
5) When a master is not liable for the torts of his servant?
A: A master is not liable for the torts of his servant in the following three cases- (i) When he has
temporarily lent his servant to another person. (ii) When he is obliged by law to employ a particular
person. (iii) When the relation between the parties is that of a head of a Government department and
an employee in that department.
6) What is the place of motive in determining the tortuous liability?
A: Relevancy of motive in torts - As a rule, motive by itself, is irrelevant in the Law of Torts. An Act
which is lawful cannot become unlawful merely because to is done with an evil motive. It is the act,
and not the motive for the Act, that is relevant. If the Act, apart from the motive, gives rise merely to
damage without legal injury, the motive, however, reprehensible it may be, will not supply the missing
element. The best illustrative case on this point is Mayor of Bradford Corporation v. Pickles, (1895).
On the other hand, a good motive will not excuse a person from liability, where the Act is prima facie
a legal injury. The Case of Tithes Imperiled well illustrates this principle. However, the cases in which
a bad motive may be relevant in law of trots are: (a) Malicious prosecution, (b) defamation, (c)
conspiracy, and (e) nuisance.
7) Explain the relevancy of intention in tort?
A: Relevancy of intention in tort - It is no defense to an action is tort for the wrong-doer to plead that
he did not intend to cause damage, if damage has resulted owning to an Act or omission on his
part which is directly the effect of his violation. Every man is presumed to intend the natural and
ordinary consequences of his acts, and this presumption is not rebutted by proof that he did not think
of the consequence, or that he hoped or expected that they would not follow. The defendant will be
liable for the natural and necessary (not remote) consequence of his Act, whether he, in fact
contemplated them or not. Baloon and Gray Hair case are illustrative of the principle.
8) What do you mean be malfeasance?
A: Meaning of Malfeasance - Malfeasance is the commission of an unlawful Act. It is generally
applicable to those unlawful acts which are actionable per se and do not require proof of negligence
or malice. For example, trespass is malfeasance, and it is actionable per se.
9) What is Public Interest Litigation?
A: Meaning of PIL - Public Interest Litigation is a new technique to assist the poor to approach the
courts and authorities for redressing their grievance. Any person or association may file such a
petition before the concerned Court. Such person or association need not be an interested person.
The consumers can attain their valuable rights through such litigation in concession of Court fee and
other legal formalities of the courts. But, however, the Maharashtra State Commission is of the view

that in view of the nature of the complaint being in the public interest, the individual person is not
competent to agitate against the Municipal Corporation, if such an attempt is encouraged by the
commission, there will be a flood of complaints which is likely to put unnecessary strain on the
working of this commission having limited funds and staff.
10) What is misfeasance?
A: Meaning of Misfeasance - Misfeasance is the improper performance of some lawful Act. Even if a
person has undertaken to do something gratuitously, if he commits a misfeasance, he is liable.
11) What is non-feasance?
A: Meaning of Non-feasance - It means the failure or omission to perform an obligatory Act. Nonfeasance of a gratuitous undertaking does not impose liability. But where there is an obligatory duty,
and the failure or omission to do such duty cases injury to a person, it gives rise to a cause of action
in favor of such individual towards whom the duty exists. In this respect, misfeasance and nonfeasance give rise to a cause of action to some extent.
12) What do you mean by malicious prosecution?
A: If a person lodges knowingly false information with police naming plaintiff as accused and support
same by his false evidence before police as also in court, he will be held to be prosecuted, Malicious
prosecution.
13) What is tort of Nuisance?
A: The unlawful interference with a persons use of enjoyment of land of some right over or in
connection with it is a tort of Nuisance.
14) What is tort of Conversions?
A: A wrong to ones ownership of goods which involves misuse and appropriation of goods is
Conversions.
15) What does Actio Personalis Morituer Cum Persona means?
A: A personal right of action lies with the person.
16) Explain Accord and satisfaction as used in Law of Torts.
A: Accord means a mutual agreement to pay money of do something as compensation and
Satisfaction is actual payment of that sum or doing of the thing agreed to be done.
17) What is Pollocks statement on Act of God?
A: Act of God is an operation of natural forces so unexpected that no human foresight or skill could
reasonably be expected to anticipate it.
18) Head Constable runs away with the deposit at Malkahana. Will the owner of get his deposit
back? Refer to decided case.

A: The answer to this question is based on the fact and principles of law laid down in Kasturi Lal v.
State of U.P. (1956). In this case the police officers of the State of U.P., acting in the exercise of their
statutory powers, sized gold from the appellant, and as a result of their negligence on dealing with its
safe custody, the gold was not returned to him. In a suit filed by him against the State for the return of
the gold, or its value, it was held by Supreme Court that the Act was committed by the employees of
the State during the course of employment, and the employment in question being of the category
which could claim the special characteristics of sovereign power, the appellants claim could not
succeed.
19) How far Doctrine of Common Employment is a defense for masters liability to servant?
A: The Doctrine of Common Employment Prior to 1948, a master was not liable for negligent harm
to his servant by another servant engaged in common employment with him. In order to successfully
plead this defense, the master has to show:
(a) That the servant who is injured as well as the servant causing such injury were in the service of
the same employer.
(b) The injured servant was engaged in a common employment in the sense that the safety of one
servant would, in the ordinary and natural course of things, depend on the care and skill of the other
servants. However, after 1948, this defense of common employment has been taken away by the
Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Acts, 1948. Under this Act, it is no defense to an employer to
contend that he is not liable because the injury was caused by the negligence of a fellow-employee.
Any contract between the master and servant, which excludes the masters liability on the ground of
common employment, is also declared to be void.
20) Define the term Spurious goods and Services under Consumer Protection Act?
A: Such goods and services which are claimed to be genuine but they are not actually so.
21) Define the term Class Action under Consumer Protection Act?
A: One or more consumers where there are numerous consumer having the same interest.
22) Object of Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
A: To provide for better protection of the interest of consumers and for that purpose to make
provisions for establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for settlement of consumer
disputes and for matters connected within.
23) Who are joint tort-feasors?
A. When several people join in committing a tort the persons who commit such tort are known as
joint tort- freasors.
24) What is Salmonds statement on Civil Tort?
A: Tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action or unliquidated damage and

which is not exclusively the breach of contract or the breach of a trust or other merely equitable
obligation.
25) Can a legal heir or a representative of a deceased consumer life a complaint under the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
A. Yes, as provided under S.2 (1) (b) (v) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in event of death of a
consumer his legal heir or representative can file a case.
26) What is a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act?
A. Section 2 (1) (e) Consumer dispute means a dispute where the person against whom a
complaint has been made, denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint.
27) Can there be defamation of a deceased person?
A: Defamation of a deceased person - No. The law of torts makes a distinction between dead and
living person with regard to defamation. To defame a living person is a tort while it is not a tort to
defame the dead. But a criminal prosecution can lie for defaming g the dead if it would have
amounted to defamation if the deceased were, alive and if it is capable of hurting the feelings of his
living relatives.
28) Write a short note on JOINT TORT FEASORS.
A. When several persons join in committing a tort they become joint tort feasors. All persons who (in
the eye of law) are responsible for the same tort are to be dealt as joint wrong-doers. All persons
who aid or advice or direct or jointly join in the commission of a wrongful Act, are joint tort feasors. In
the words of Prof. Winfield persons are said to be joint tort feasors when their respective shares in
the commission of the tort are done in furtherance of a common design.