PAPER- IV: LAW OF TORTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS Unit-lI:

PAPER- IV:

LAW OF TORTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS

Unit-lI:

✅ Q.1: Discuss the general defences available to a defendant in an action for tort. Illustrate your answer with appropriate case laws.
Long Answer:

In the law of torts, certain general defences are available to a defendant to escape liability for a wrongful act. These defences, if successfully established, completely negate liability even if the plaintiff proves the elements of the tort. These defences are based on legal justification or absence of fault on the part of the defendant. Below is a detailed explanation:

1. Volenti Non Fit Injuria (Consent)

Meaning:
If a person knowingly and voluntarily consents to the risk of harm, he cannot later complain of the injury.

Essentials:

The plaintiff had knowledge of the risk.
The plaintiff voluntarily accepted the risk.

Case Law:
🔹 Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club (1933)
A spectator injured during a car race was held to have accepted the risk voluntarily. Defence succeeded.

🔹 Padmavati v. Dugganaika (1975)
Two strangers gave lift in a jeep; accident occurred due to tyre burst. Defence of consent applied as passengers voluntarily entered without invitation.

2. Inevitable Accident

Meaning:
An accident which could not have been prevented despite all reasonable care and precautions.

Essentials:

It must be shown that the accident was unavoidable.
No negligence should be involved.

Case Law:
🔹 Stanley v. Powell (1891)
While shooting birds, a bullet ricocheted and injured plaintiff. Held as inevitable accident; no liability.

3. Act of God (Vis Major)

Meaning:
An event arising from natural forces so extraordinary that it cannot be anticipated or guarded against.

Essentials:

Must be a natural force.
Must be unforeseeable and irresistible.

Case Law:
🔹 Nichols v. Marsland (1876)
Artificial lakes overflowed due to heavy rain; not liable as rain was extraordinary and unforeseeable.

4. Private Defence (Self-Defence)

Meaning:
The law allows a person to use reasonable force to protect himself, others, or his property from imminent harm.

Essentials:

There must be imminent threat.
Force used must be proportionate.

Case Law:
🔹 Bird v. Holbrook (1828)
Defendant set up a spring gun to protect garden without warning. Held liable, as the force was disproportionate.

5. Necessity

Meaning:
When an act is done to prevent greater harm, even if it causes damage to another, it may be justified.

Essentials:

The act must be reasonably necessary.
Must be done in good faith to prevent greater harm.

Case Law:
🔹 Cope v. Sharpe (1912)
Entry into another’s land to prevent spread of fire was held justifiable under necessity.

6. Statutory Authority

Meaning:
If an act is authorized by law or statute, no action lies in tort, even if it causes damage.

Essentials:

Act must be within the ambit of the statute.
Must not be negligently performed.

Case Law:
🔹 Vaughan v. Taff Vale Railway Co. (1860)
Railway company authorised by statute caused fire due to engine sparks. Held not liable as they acted under statutory authority.

7. Mistake

Meaning:
Generally, mistake of fact or law is no defence in tort unless the mistake negates the wrongful intention required.

Example:
A person mistakenly enters another’s land believing it to be his own – still liable for trespass.

8. Plaintiff’s Own Wrong (Ex turpi causa)

Meaning:
If the plaintiff himself was engaged in illegal or immoral conduct, he may be denied relief.

Case Law:
🔹 Pitts v. Hunt (1990)
Plaintiff injured while riding on a stolen motorcycle. Claim denied due to illegal act involved.

9. Contributory Negligence

Meaning:
When the plaintiff himself is partly negligent, his damages may be reduced or denied.

Legal Provision (India):
Section 1 of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act, 1945 (UK) – adopted in Indian cases too.

Case Law:
🔹 Butterfield v. Forrester (1809)
Plaintiff riding recklessly collided with a pole. Held contributorily negligent.

Conclusion:

The general defences in tort law serve as a shield for the defendant against liability. However, their application depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Courts carefully scrutinize whether the requirements of the defence are fully met. These defences aim to ensure fairness and prevent unjust enrichment of plaintiffs.

✅ Q.2: Explain the concept of vicarious liability. Under what circumstances is a master liable for the torts committed by his servant?
Long Answer:

Meaning of Vicarious Liability:

Vicarious liability refers to a legal doctrine under which one person is held liable for the wrongful acts of another, even though the person held liable may not have committed the wrongful act himself.

This commonly arises in the master-servant relationship, where a master (employer) is held liable for the torts committed by his servant (employee) during the course of employment.

Foundational Principle:

“Qui facit per alium, facit per se” – He who acts through another is deemed to act in person.

Essentials of Vicarious Liability (Master-Servant Relationship):

For a master to be held vicariously liable for the acts of his servant, the following conditions must be satisfied:

1. Existence of Master-Servant Relationship

The person committing the wrong must be a servant (not an independent contractor).
The master must have control over the mode and manner of doing work.

Case Law:
🔹 Short v. J & W Henderson Ltd.
It was held that key factors in determining a servant are the power to select, pay, dismiss, and control the work.

2. Tort Committed During the Course of Employment

The wrongful act must be committed in the course of employment, i.e., while performing duties assigned by the master.

Tests to Determine “Course of Employment”:

A. Authorised Acts:

If a servant does what he is authorised to do, even negligently or improperly, the master is liable.

Case Law:
🔹 Bayley v. Manchester Railway Co.
A railway porter pulled a passenger out of a train thinking he was in the wrong coach, causing injury. Held: The company was liable.

B. Acts Authorised in a Wrongful Manner:

If the servant is doing something authorised by the master but in a wrongful or negligent way.

Case Law:
🔹 Century Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Northern Ireland Road Transport Board
A petrol tanker driver, while unloading petrol, struck a match and caused an explosion. Held: Master liable.

C. Unauthorized Acts Closely Connected with Employment:

Acts that are not explicitly authorised but are closely connected to the servant’s duties.

Case Law:
🔹 Lister v. Hesley Hall Ltd. (2002)
Warden sexually abused children. Though abuse was unauthorised, the court held the employer vicariously liable due to close connection with job.

When Master is NOT Liable:

1. Acts Outside the Course of Employment

If the servant acts on a frolic of his own, the master is not liable.

Case Law:
🔹 Beard v. London General Omnibus Co.
A conductor drove the bus and injured a person. Held: Master not liable as driving was not part of conductor’s duties.

2. Acts by Independent Contractors

A master is generally not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor (who is hired to do a task but not controlled in the manner of doing it).

Indian Position:

Indian courts have consistently applied the principle of vicarious liability in line with English law.

Case Law:
🔹 State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962)
A government jeep driver, returning from a workshop, drove negligently and caused death. Held: State vicariously liable.

🔹 Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (1977)
Employee driving car for personal purpose met with an accident. Held: Company not liable.

Rationale of Vicarious Liability:

Deep pocket theory – Employer has the means to compensate.
Control test – Employer has control over employee’s conduct.
Risk distribution – Risk is transferred to the party benefiting from the act.
Encourages proper supervision and careful hiring.

Conclusion:

Vicarious liability is an important principle in tort law which helps protect victims of wrongs committed in a workplace or agency setting. A master is liable for the acts of his servant only if those acts are committed in the course of employment. However, the court also distinguishes between authorised acts, wrongful modes of performing authorised acts, and unauthorised acts, which determine whether the liability will be fastened upon the master.

✅ Q.3: Examine the liability of the State for torts committed by its employees. How does the doctrine of sovereign immunity apply in India?
Long Answer:

Introduction:

The liability of the State for torts committed by its employees is a crucial aspect of tort law, especially in the context of a welfare state like India. When a government servant, acting in the course of his employment, commits a tortious act (like negligence, assault, wrongful detention), the question arises whether the State (Government) can be held liable.

The answer depends on the doctrine of sovereign immunity and the distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions.

1. Concept of Sovereign Immunity:

Sovereign immunity is a common law doctrine that states “the King can do no wrong.” Under this, the State could not be sued for torts committed by its servants.

This doctrine was recognized in India during British rule, through Section 65 of the Government of India Act, 1858, and continued under Article 300 of the Constitution of India.

2. Article 300 of the Constitution:

Article 300 provides that the Union and the States can sue and be sued in the same manner as the Dominion of India and Provinces could before the commencement of the Constitution.

Thus, the pre-Constitution law on State liability still applies unless modified by legislation or judicial interpretation.

3. Distinction Between Sovereign and Non-Sovereign Functions:

Courts in India have drawn a distinction between:

Sovereign functions: Acts done in exercise of State authority, like defense, police, law-making, foreign affairs.
Non-sovereign functions: Commercial or welfare activities like running transport, industries, hospitals, etc.

The State is not liable for torts committed by employees in the discharge of sovereign functions,
but liable for torts arising out of non-sovereign functions.

4. Judicial Interpretation in India:

✅ (a) P & O Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State (1861)

🔹 First landmark case on State liability in tort.
🔹 A servant of the East India Company negligently injured plaintiff’s horse and cart.
🔹 Held: State liable as the act was not in the exercise of sovereign functions.

✅ (b) Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of UP (1965)

🔹 Gold seized by police was misappropriated by a constable.
🔹 Held: The act was committed during sovereign function (policing), so the State was not liable.
🔹 This decision upheld the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

✅ (c) State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962)

🔹 Government jeep driver caused death by negligent driving while returning from a workshop.
🔹 Held: The State was liable, as maintenance and use of a vehicle was a non-sovereign function.
🔹 Court rejected sovereign immunity in this case.

✅ (d) Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)

🔹 Custodial death of victim by police.
🔹 Supreme Court granted compensation under Article 32 for violation of Fundamental Rights (Article 21).
🔹 Held: Sovereign immunity does not apply to constitutional torts.

5. Constitutional Tort and State Liability:

In recent times, courts have developed the concept of “constitutional tort”, where violation of fundamental rights (especially Article 21 – Right to Life) by State agents results in State liability, irrespective of sovereign immunity.

Key Principle: “The State is liable to pay compensation for infringement of Fundamental Rights by its employees.”

Examples:

Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar (1983): Compensation for illegal detention.
Saheli v. Commissioner of Police (1990): Death of child due to police brutality – Delhi administration held liable.

6. Current Legal Position in India:

The distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions still persists for ordinary torts.
Sovereign immunity does not apply where there is violation of fundamental rights (constitutional tort).
The courts are moving towards a more liberal and welfare-oriented approach in State liability.

7. Law Commission and Need for Legislation:

The Law Commission of India (1st and 2nd Reports) and various jurists have recommended codification of the law on State liability.
India still does not have a specific legislation governing State liability in torts.

Conclusion:

The liability of the State for torts committed by its employees in India is still governed by colonial-era principles, but with significant judicial evolution. While the doctrine of sovereign immunity continues in certain cases, it has been diluted by the courts, especially in cases involving constitutional violations.

There is a pressing need for comprehensive legislation in India to clarify the extent and limits of State liability in tort, so that citizens are protected against arbitrary and wrongful acts of the government and its servants.

✅ Q.4: What is the defence of sovereign immunity? Is it still a valid defence in modern India? Discuss critically with case references.
Long Answer:

Introduction:

The defence of sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine that shields the State or government from being sued in a court of law without its consent. Historically rooted in the British principle that “The King can do no wrong,” this doctrine was inherited by India during colonial rule.

In modern times, this doctrine has come under judicial scrutiny and has been gradually diluted, especially when it clashes with citizens’ fundamental rights. In India, the courts have tried to balance the State’s sovereign functions with the rights of individuals to seek compensation for wrongs.

1. Meaning of Sovereign Immunity:

Sovereign Immunity implies that the State cannot be held liable in tort for acts done in the exercise of its sovereign powers, such as law enforcement, military action, foreign affairs, etc.

This means that if a tort is committed by a government servant while performing a sovereign function, the State is immune from liability.

2. Origin in Indian Law:

After independence, Article 300 of the Constitution maintained the pre-constitutional position, allowing the Union and States to be sued “in the same manner and to the same extent” as under the Government of India Act, 1858.

This carried forward the distinction between:

Sovereign functions – immune from liability
Non-sovereign functions – State can be held liable

3. Evolution through Judicial Decisions:

✅ (a) P & O Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State (1861)

First case to recognize State liability in tort.
Distinction made between sovereign and non-sovereign functions.
Held: State liable for non-sovereign functions like transport.

✅ (b) Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P. (1965)

Gold seized by police was misappropriated.
Held: Police was performing a sovereign function, so the State was not liable.
This case reaffirmed the doctrine of sovereign immunity in India.

Criticism:

Heavily criticized for being regressive and outdated.
Ignored the citizen’s right to compensation for wrongs by the State.

✅ (c) State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962)

Government jeep driver killed a pedestrian due to negligent driving.
Held: State was liable as maintaining vehicles was a non-sovereign function.
The court rejected absolute sovereign immunity.

Significance:

This decision preceded Kasturilal but took a more liberal and progressive view.

✅ (d) Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)

A boy died in police custody.
Supreme Court granted compensation under Article 32 for violation of Fundamental Rights (Article 21).
Sovereign immunity was rejected in cases of constitutional torts.

✅ (e) Common Cause v. Union of India (1999)

Held that doctrine of sovereign immunity has no place in a welfare state and must be reconsidered.

4. Shift Towards Constitutional Tort Doctrine:

Modern Indian judiciary has carved out a new branch known as “constitutional torts”, where citizens can claim compensation for violation of fundamental rights by State authorities.
These are strict liability cases, and sovereign immunity does not apply.

Examples:

Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar (1983) – Illegal detention.
Saheli v. Commissioner of Police (1990) – Death of child due to police assault.
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) – Guidelines on arrest and custodial torture.

5. Is Sovereign Immunity Still a Valid Defence in Modern India?

✅ Yes, in limited cases:

In ordinary tort cases, where the function was clearly sovereign in nature (e.g., military operations, tax collection), the defence may still apply.

❌ No, in constitutional torts and non-sovereign functions:

Where there is a violation of Fundamental Rights, sovereign immunity cannot be pleaded.
For welfare and commercial activities, the State cannot escape liability by claiming sovereign immunity.

6. Critical Evaluation:

The doctrine of sovereign immunity is inconsistent with the concept of the Rule of Law and constitutional values.
It often leaves victims without remedy, despite being harmed by State agents.
In a welfare state, such a doctrine is outdated and unjust.
Indian courts have been progressive in limiting its scope, especially through public interest litigation (PIL) and compensation jurisprudence.
However, no clear legislation has been enacted to define the limits of State liability.

Conclusion:

While the defence of sovereign immunity still exists in Indian law, it has been narrowed down significantly. The judiciary has moved towards a rights-based approach, where the State is held accountable for its employees’ tortious acts, particularly in cases involving fundamental rights.

There is an urgent need for comprehensive legislation to codify the law of State liability in torts, making it clear, just, and consistent with the principles of constitutional democracy.

✅ Q.5: What is joint liability? Explain the legal consequences when multiple persons commit a tort together.
Long Answer:

1. Meaning of Joint Liability in Tort Law:

Joint liability arises when two or more persons together commit a tortious act and are collectively responsible for the harm caused to the plaintiff. In such cases, the injured party may sue all or any one of them for the entire damage.

This principle ensures that the plaintiff is compensated fully, regardless of the internal distribution of fault among the wrongdoers.

✅ Key Principle: All joint tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable.

2. Who are Joint Tortfeasors?

Joint tortfeasors are:

Persons who act together in pursuance of a common design or plan to commit a tort, or
Persons whose independent acts result in the same damage to the plaintiff.

3. Legal Consequences of Joint Liability:

✅ 1. Joint and Several Liability:

The plaintiff may sue any one, some, or all of the wrongdoers.
Each defendant is liable for the entire damage, not just his share.

Example:
If A, B, and C commit a tort jointly causing ₹1,00,000 in damage, the plaintiff can recover the entire ₹1,00,000 from any one of them. That defendant can later claim contribution from the others.

✅ 2. No Right of Contribution at Common Law (Old Rule):

Earlier, a tortfeasor who paid the full damages could not claim contribution from others.
This was based on the maxim “ex turpi causa non oritur actio” – no right arises from a wrongful act.

✅ 3. Modern Position: Contribution Permitted:

Most jurisdictions, including India, now allow contribution among joint tortfeasors.
The tortfeasor who pays full compensation can recover proportionate amounts from others.

Legal Provision:
The Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act, 1935 (UK), and principles adopted by Indian courts recognize contribution.

✅ 4. Release of One Joint Tortfeasor:

If the plaintiff releases one tortfeasor, it may or may not release the others, depending on the terms of release.
But in many modern cases, courts interpret such a release as not discharging others unless expressly stated.

✅ 5. Satisfaction and Bar to Further Claims:

Once the plaintiff has obtained full compensation, he cannot sue the others again.
This avoids double recovery.

4. Types of Participation Leading to Joint Liability:

✅ A. Common Intention or Conspiracy:

If persons act in pursuance of a common plan, all are liable even if one actually commits the act.

Case Law:
🔹 Brooks v. Stein (1919)
Several persons conspired to defraud. All held jointly liable.

✅ B. Independent Acts Causing the Same Damage:

If multiple persons act independently, but their acts cause a single, indivisible injury, they may be held jointly liable.

Case Law:
🔹 The Koursk (1924)
Two ships collided with a third one. Held: Both ship owners jointly liable for the damage.

5. Relevant Case Laws:

✅ (a) Derry v. Peek (1889)

Though primarily related to fraud, this case established that joint misrepresentation leads to joint liability.

✅ (b) Unity Insurance Co. v. Crowcroft (1921)

Insurers held jointly liable for issuing multiple false claims.

✅ (c) Krishna v. State of Maharashtra (2001)

Held: Where multiple persons cause custodial torture, all may be jointly liable.

6. Justification of the Rule:

Ensures complete compensation to the victim.
Prevents injustice or escape due to procedural hurdles.
Encourages care and caution among those acting together.

7. Joint Liability vs. Several Liability:

Basis	Joint Liability	Several Liability
Definition	Two or more persons liable together for same wrong	Each person liable for distinct acts
Liability	Single liability shared among all	Separate liability for own acts
Claim	Plaintiff can sue one or all for entire amount	Plaintiff can sue each for their individual share

8. Position in India:

Indian courts have generally followed English law principles and upheld the concept of joint and several liability in torts.

Conclusion:

The doctrine of joint liability is an essential tool in tort law to ensure that victims are not deprived of justice just because multiple persons were involved in committing a wrong. It allows the courts to hold each tortfeasor accountable, promote deterrence, and simplify recovery for the injured party. However, with this responsibility also comes the possibility of contribution, ensuring fairness among the wrongdoers.

✅ Q.6: Distinguish between ‘Strict Liability’ and ‘Absolute Liability’. How has Indian jurisprudence evolved in this context?
Long Answer:

Introduction:

The concepts of Strict Liability and Absolute Liability are fundamental principles of tort law, particularly in cases involving hazardous and dangerous activities. These doctrines are invoked when damage is caused without any direct fault or negligence of the defendant.

While Strict Liability is a rule of English origin, Absolute Liability is an Indian innovation, developed by the Supreme Court to suit the socio-economic conditions of India.

1. Doctrine of Strict Liability:

✅ Origin:

Established in Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), an English case.
The defendant had a reservoir on his land. Due to latent defect, water escaped and flooded the plaintiff’s coal mines.

✅ Rule Laid Down:

“A person who, for his own purposes, brings and keeps on his land anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril. If he fails to do so, he is strictly liable for the damage.”

✅ Essential Elements:

Dangerous thing must be brought by the defendant.
Non-natural use of land.
The thing must escape from the land.
There must be foreseeable damage.

✅ Exceptions to Strict Liability:

Act of God
Act of third party
Plaintiff’s consent
Statutory authority
Plaintiff’s own default

2. Doctrine of Absolute Liability:

✅ Origin:

Introduced by Indian Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) — the Oleum Gas Leak Case from a fertilizer plant owned by Shriram Industries in Delhi.

✅ Rule Laid Down:

“An enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community. If harm results on account of such activity, the enterprise is absolutely liable to compensate, regardless of any exceptions.”

✅ Key Features:

No exceptions allowed — unlike strict liability.
Liability is absolute and unconditional.
It applies to modern industrial hazards.
Focus is on welfare, justice, and deterrence.

3. Differences Between Strict Liability and Absolute Liability:

Basis	Strict Liability	Absolute Liability
Origin	English law (Rylands v. Fletcher)	Indian law (M.C. Mehta v. UOI)
Fault	No negligence required, but exceptions allowed	No negligence required, and no exceptions allowed
Scope	Applies to non-natural use of land	Applies to hazardous industries and modern technologies
Defences	Several defences available (Act of God, third party, etc.)	No defence available
Liability	Strict, but limited	Absolute and unlimited, proportional to the harm caused
Purpose	Protection from unnatural risks	Higher standard of care for public safety

4. Evolution of Indian Jurisprudence:

India has gradually moved from importing English principles to developing indigenous doctrines to address modern industrial realities:

✅ (a) M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)

Court evolved the doctrine of absolute liability.
Rejected the application of Rylands v. Fletcher to Indian conditions.
Emphasized social justice and welfare state responsibilities.

✅ (b) Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)

Court reaffirmed absolute liability for environmental pollution.
Held hazardous industries strictly accountable, regardless of intent.

✅ (c) Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)

Introduced Polluter Pays Principle and Precautionary Principle.
Reinforced the idea of non-negotiable liability in environmental harm.

✅ (d) Bhopal Gas Tragedy (Union Carbide case)

Though not directly decided on absolute liability, it highlighted the need for a strong legal framework for industrial disasters.
Led to the enactment of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, mandating insurance for hazardous industries.

5. Importance of Absolute Liability in India:

India is a rapidly industrializing nation with large population centers near industrial zones.
Strict enforcement of absolute liability ensures:
- Deterrence for industrial negligence.
- Justice to the victims.
- Accountability of multinational corporations.
- Promotion of sustainable development.

6. Criticism and Challenges:

Difficulties in determining the extent of liability.
Lack of uniform compensation mechanisms.
Delayed enforcement and weak regulatory oversight.
Needs codification for clarity and consistency.

Conclusion:

The shift from strict liability to absolute liability in Indian jurisprudence marks a progressive and welfare-oriented development. While strict liability introduced the idea of responsibility without fault, absolute liability ensures greater protection to citizens in the age of industrialization and environmental hazards.

The Indian Supreme Court, through landmark judgments, has played a pioneering role in evolving this doctrine to meet the demands of justice, safety, and public good in modern society.

✅ 7. Define occupiers’ liability. What duties does an occupier owe to visitors and trespassers? Explain with the help of cases.
Long Answer:

1. Meaning of Occupiers’ Liability:

Occupiers’ liability refers to the legal responsibility of those who occupy land or premises (i.e., the “occupiers”) for injuries sustained by persons who enter onto that property. It arises from the duty of care that an occupier owes to people who enter their land.

The liability is primarily based on negligence, and focuses on the condition of the premises rather than the conduct of the occupier.

2. Who is an Occupier?

An occupier is a person who has a sufficient degree of control over premises such that he should realize that failure to use care may result in injury to visitors.
➡️ Wheat v. E. Lacon & Co. Ltd. (1966): The House of Lords held that more than one person can be an occupier and both may owe a duty of care.

3. Categories of Persons Entering the Premises:

The duty of care varies based on the status of the person entering:

Category	Definition	Duty Owed by Occupier
Invitees	Persons invited to enter for a mutual benefit.	Reasonable care to ensure safety.
Licensees	Persons entering with permission, but not for occupier’s benefit (e.g., social guests).	Warn of hidden dangers known to the occupier.
Trespassers	Persons entering without permission.	Lesser duty—must not willfully harm, and in modern law, a minimal duty of care is recognized.

4. Occupiers’ Liability towards Visitors:

In common law and under statutes like the Occupiers’ Liability Act, 1957 (UK), an occupier must ensure that a lawful visitor is reasonably safe. The law considers:

The type of visitor (adult/child).
The purpose of the visit.
Warnings given.

Important Case Law:

➡️ Indermaur v. Dames (1866):
The court held that the occupier owed a duty of care to an invitee to keep the premises reasonably safe.

➡️ Glasgow Corporation v. Taylor (1922):
A 7-year-old boy ate poisonous berries from a shrub in a public park and died. The occupier was held liable for not fencing or warning about the danger, especially since the “allurement” was attractive to children.

➡️ Roles v. Nathan (1963):
Two chimney sweeps died due to carbon monoxide while working. The court held that the danger was a special risk related to their work, and sufficient warning was given; hence, no liability.

5. Occupiers’ Liability towards Trespassers:

Traditionally, trespassers were owed no duty except that they should not be deliberately harmed. However, modern law has evolved.

➡️ British Railways Board v. Herrington (1972) (UK):
Established a “duty of common humanity” towards trespassers. The occupier must take reasonable steps to prevent injury if the trespasser’s presence is known or foreseeable.

➡️ Indian courts have followed a more humanitarian approach, especially in cases involving children or foreseeable danger.

6. Occupiers’ Liability in India:

Though India doesn’t have a specific statute on occupiers’ liability like the UK, the liability is derived from general principles of negligence under tort law.

The Supreme Court of India and High Courts have held that public authorities, corporations, and private individuals can be held liable for unsafe premises or non-removal of hazards when it leads to foreseeable harm.

➡️ Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti (1966):
A clock tower collapsed and killed pedestrians. The Corporation was held liable for not maintaining the structure.

7. Conclusion:

Occupiers’ liability ensures that individuals who control property take reasonable care to prevent injury to those who enter. The duty owed varies with the status of the entrant, and courts increasingly emphasize foreseeability and reasonableness over rigid categorization.

Modern trends in India and abroad have moved toward recognizing a general duty of care, including minimal obligations to trespassers in appropriate circumstances.

✅ 8. What are the various modes of extinction of liability in tort? Discuss waiver, acquiescence, release, and accord and satisfaction in detail.
Long Answer:

In the Law of Torts, once a person has a cause of action against another, it does not necessarily follow that the defendant will be liable in all cases. There are various modes of extinction of tortious liability, i.e., ways in which the right to sue may be lost or liability may come to an end. These include waiver, acquiescence, release, and accord and satisfaction among others.

1. Waiver

Definition:
Waiver means the voluntary relinquishment or abandonment of a known legal right or claim.

In Torts:
When a person has two alternative remedies (e.g., tort and contract), and he chooses to pursue one, he waives the other.

Example:
If a person is defamed and instead of suing for damages (a tort remedy), accepts a public apology and retracts his complaint, he has waived his right to sue.

Case Law:

Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt (1913): Though not directly about tort, this case illustrates waiver in contract law that can apply in torts by analogy when one remedy is pursued over another.

2. Acquiescence

Definition:
Acquiescence means passive assent or implied consent by remaining silent or inactive when one ought to assert a right.

In Torts:
If the claimant, knowing about the tort, does not protest or take any legal action within a reasonable time, it can be interpreted that they have acquiesced to the conduct.

Legal Effect:
Acquiescence may amount to estoppel, preventing the claimant from asserting their right later.

Example:
A person permits his neighbor to encroach upon his land and builds a shed, but remains silent for years. Later, they may be barred from suing for trespass due to acquiescence.

Case Law:

Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979): Though a constitutional case, it underscores how silence and conduct can bar legal relief — a principle applicable in torts too.

3. Release

Definition:
Release means formal relinquishment of the right to sue. It is generally in writing and discharges the tortfeasor from further liability.

Legal Effect:
Once a release is granted (with or without consideration), the right to claim is extinguished.

Example:
If a person injured in an accident accepts compensation from the tortfeasor and signs a release deed, he cannot sue later for additional damages.

Joint Tortfeasors:
Release of one joint tortfeasor may or may not release others depending on the jurisdiction. In India, release of one generally releases all.

Case Law:

Duck v. Mayeu (1892): Held that release of one joint tortfeasor discharges others unless the intention is clearly otherwise.

4. Accord and Satisfaction

Definition:
Accord refers to an agreement whereby one party agrees to accept something different (usually less) than what was originally owed. Satisfaction refers to the performance of that agreement.

In Torts:
It extinguishes liability when the plaintiff agrees to accept some form of compensation other than legal action (e.g., a settlement), and the defendant performs that obligation.

Example:
A newspaper publishes a defamatory article but offers to publish a public apology and the plaintiff accepts it. This bars a subsequent suit for damages.

Case Law:

British Russian Gazette v. Associated Newspapers (1933): Recognized that out-of-court settlements can amount to accord and satisfaction barring further tort claims.

Other Modes of Extinction of Tortious Liability:

Limitation of Time:
Under the Limitation Act, a tort claim must be brought within a prescribed time (usually 1-3 years depending on the tort). Failure extinguishes the remedy.
Death of Parties:
Under common law, personal torts (e.g., defamation) did not survive the death of parties, but statutes like the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 in India allow for claims by legal representatives in certain cases.
Judgment Recovered:
Once a final judgment has been obtained and satisfied, no further claim can be brought for the same cause of action.

Conclusion:

The law of torts provides several doctrines and principles to balance the rights of claimants and the need for finality and certainty. The doctrines of waiver, acquiescence, release, and accord and satisfaction ensure that once a person has had a fair opportunity to assert their rights, they cannot indefinitely keep the threat of litigation hanging over the defendant. Courts view these doctrines as essential for justice, consistency, and judicial efficiency.

✅ Q.9. Explain the impact of death on tortious liability. Can there be a tort claim if either the wrongdoer or the victim dies? Support your answer with legal provisions and case law.
Long Answer:

Introduction:

At common law, the maxim “actio personalis moritur cum persona” governed the law of torts, which means that a personal action dies with the person. Thus, originally, if either the tortfeasor or the victim died, the cause of action for tort came to an end. However, this principle has now undergone significant changes both in England and India through statutory enactments.

Position under English Law:

In England, the common law rule was altered by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934, and Fatal Accidents Act, 1846 (Lord Campbell’s Act):

The 1934 Act allows the estate of the deceased to claim for torts that caused harm to the deceased before his death.
The 1846 Act allows dependents of the deceased to bring an action for compensation if the death was caused by another’s wrongful act.

Position under Indian Law:

1. Survival of Cause of Action (Victim Dies):

In India, two statutes govern this area:

The Legal Representatives Suits Act, 1855
The Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855

These statutes allow for a tort claim to continue or be initiated even after the death of the victim.

(a) Legal Representatives Suits Act, 1855
It provides that a legal representative of a deceased person may sue for any wrong that caused injury to the deceased’s estate, which he could have sued for if he were alive.

However, the right does not survive in cases of defamation, assault, or other personal torts.

(b) The Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855
This Act allows the family members or dependents of a person who dies due to a wrongful act, neglect, or default to bring an action for damages.

Such a suit is maintainable if the deceased could have sued the defendant had he survived.

Who can sue?
Wife, husband, parent, and child of the deceased can file the suit through the legal representative of the deceased.

Case Law:
▶️ Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P. (1965 AIR 1039)
Held that tortious liability for wrongful acts does not survive against the State if committed in the exercise of sovereign functions, though this has been diluted in later rulings.

▶️ Gujarat State Road Transport Corp. v. Ramanbhai (AIR 1987 SC 1690)
SC held that independent of any provision in the Motor Vehicles Act, the dependents of the deceased have the right to claim compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855.

2. Death of Wrongdoer (Tortfeasor Dies):

Under Indian law, if the tortfeasor (wrongdoer) dies:

The right to sue generally survives against the wrongdoer’s estate.
But, if the wrong involves personal injury like defamation or assault, the right does not survive.

Illustration:
If A negligently causes an accident and dies later, B (victim) can sue A’s legal representative, subject to the availability of the estate.

Exceptions to Survival:

Torts of a personal nature such as libel, slander, assault, false imprisonment, etc., typically do not survive.
But torts affecting property or estate generally do.

Conclusion:

The doctrine that a tort dies with the person has been substantially diluted in modern Indian law. Statutory provisions such as the Legal Representatives Suits Act, 1855 and the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 have ensured that claims survive both the victim’s and the wrongdoer’s death under specified circumstances. However, actions for personal wrongs still do not survive. The legal framework today aims to strike a balance between justice for the injured and finality in personal legal actions.