Definition
Civil wrong giving rise to a right of action in damages.
A civil wrong (other than a breach of contract) for which the law provides a remedy in damages — the law of torts determines when one person must compensate another for harm caused.
Statutory Definition
No single codifying statute — common law doctrine applied by Indian courts; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for accident liability; Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Etymology & Origin
From Latin 'tortum' (a wrong, twisted — past participle of 'torquere', to twist, wring). A tort is literally something 'twisted' — a wrongful act that distorts the normal relations between persons. In Old French 'tort' meant 'wrong' and entered English law through Norman influence. The same root gives 'torture' (twisting to cause pain) and 'contort' (twist together).
Full Legal Analysis
A tort is a civil wrong (other than a breach of contract or breach of trust) for which the law provides a remedy in the form of damages or injunction. The law of torts is the branch of civil law that determines when one person has committed a legal wrong against another and must pay compensation. Unlike criminal law, where the state prosecutes the wrongdoer for an offence against society, in tort law the injured person (the plaintiff) sues the wrongdoer (the defendant) directly for a remedy. The primary remedy in tort is compensatory damages — money to restore the plaintiff to the position they would have been in but for the tort.
General elements of a tort: (1) A wrongful act or omission by the defendant — conduct that departs from the legal standard; (2) Legal duty — the defendant must have owed a legal duty to the plaintiff; (3) Breach of that duty — the defendant's conduct fell below the required standard; and (4) Damage — the plaintiff suffered actual harm as a consequence of the breach. However, not all torts require proof of actual damage — 'torts actionable per se' (such as trespass to person or land) are actionable without proof of damage, as the mere interference with the right is sufficient. Negligence, however, requires proof of actual damage.
The House of Lords (Lord Atkin's 'neighbour principle') established the modern foundation for the law of negligence — and more broadly, for the existence of a duty of care in tort law. Lord Atkin held: 'You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour? Persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.' This principle — the foreseeable plaintiff is owed a duty of care — is the foundational proposition of the law of negligence followed in India.
The law of torts in India: India does not have a comprehensive codification of the law of torts (unlike, for example, the German Civil Code). Courts apply the common law of England as a residual law (through Section 37 of the Civil Procedure Code's inherent powers and the general adoption of English common law by Indian courts), modified by Indian statutes, customs, and the Supreme Court's constitutional jurisprudence under Article 21. Key torts litigated in Indian courts include: negligence, defamation, trespass, nuisance, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, strict/absolute liability, and passing off.
For advocates, tort claims arise in: (1) motor accident compensation claims — under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (no-fault compensation via Motor Accident Claims Tribunals); (2) defamation suits — civil and criminal; (3) consumer disputes — statutory tort under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019; (4) medical negligence — negligence by doctors (Indian Medical Association v. VP Shantha (1995) — medical services subject to Consumer Protection Act); and (5) environmental torts — M.C. Mehta v. Union of India absolute liability cases.
This Term in Indian Statutes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, 1988
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule."
Donoghue v. Stevenson: neighbour principle (foundational); Indian courts apply common law torts; MV Act 163A no-fault compensation; M.C. Mehta absolute liability; Consumer Protection Act 2019 statutory tort remedy
