Principles of Tort Liability

• Although most principles of tort law originate from English common law,
Indian courts have modified them to meet local requirements. The following are
some important tort law principles for fixing liability-:
• 1) Damnum Sine Injuria
• Damnum sine injuria is a Latin legal maxim which basically means damage
without injury. It means an actual loss which occurs without the infringement of
any legal rights.
• 2) Injuria Sine Damno
• In contrast with damnum sine injuria, the principle of injuria sine damno means
an infringement of rights without actual losses. Since this leads to infringement
of rights, liability can arise even if no person suffers actual or substantial losses.
• 3) Principle of Vicarious Liability
• The general rule of tort liability is that the person who causes damage
must pay compensation. In certain cases, however, liability can arise
on third parties also. The law refers to this vicarious liability.
• 4) Volenti Non-Fit Injuria
• Sometimes it may so happen that a person may suffer damages when
he consents to some act. This consent may be in the form of
knowledge of the possibility of damage and free will to undergo it. A
person who understands the risks he may incur while doing something
and still does it cannot seek compensation.
• 5) Strict Liability and Absolute Liability
• Strict liability
• The rule of a strict liability says that if a business’s commercial
activities harm somebody, it should compensate him. This liability will
arise even if it took all necessary precautions to prevent the damage.
• Absolute liability
• If the law imposes strict liability on a person, it also allows him to take
certain defences. For example, a defendant may say that the damage
occurred due to natural calamities beyond his control.
 The doctrine of Remoteness of Damage

• When a person commits a tort, it has consequences, these

consequences in return may have more consequence therefore further
leading to a chain of such events.
• The doctrine of the remoteness of damages is a method or test used to
calculate the losses caused due to wrongdoing or breach or to what
extent the previously mentioned chain consequences is the defendant
responsible for.
• By this method, the liability of the defendant within reasonable
bounds is decided through certain tests.
• The general principle behind the doctrine of the remoteness of damage
was laid down in the Court of Exchequer, in the case of Hadley v.
Baxendale, the plaintiff’s mill had come to a stop because of a break in
their crankshaft.
• The defendant failed to deliver the broken crankshaft to the manufacturer
within the agreed time, which in turn led to delay in restarting the mill.
• The plaintiff bought a case against the defendant to recover the profits
lost because of the delay in restarting the mill.
• The profits of the mills should be stopped by an unreasonable delay in the
delivery of the broken crankshaft to the third person held by the court
while rejecting the claim.
• The rule guiding the judges in such cases is when a contract between two parties is
breached by one of them, the other party is entitled to receive damages but only if the
breach of contract has arisen naturally, fairly and reasonably.
• For example- A drunk driver crashed into a truck, which then in turn collided with the side
of a small building, leading to the collapse of the building and death of 50 people. The
collapse of the building and debris fell onto its surroundings killing more people.
• Now in the above example, one can see how one accident had multiple consequences, even
though they were not intended nor comprehended beforehand by the defendant. Now in
such scenarios on whom does the blame of so many deaths fall? The answer to this question
was given by Lord Wright in the case of Liesbosch Dredger v. S.S. Edison-
• “The Law cannot take responsibility for all the consequences of a wrongful act; some acts
fall outside the scope of its selection, because it was infinite of the law to judge the causes
of causes, or consequences of consequences. In the varied web of affairs, the law must
abstract some consequences as relevant, not perhaps on grounds of pure logic but simply
for practical reasons.”
• It was ultimately held by the jurists that the defendants will be liable only for the
consequences which were proximate and not remote consequences of his wrongdoing.
 Test of Remoteness
• Now that we’re aware of, a defendant is held liable for only the proximate consequences of his
wrongdoing. Let us look at how it is decided that what consequences are proximate and which remote-
• 1. All Direct Consequences Test
• An individual is held liable for all his direct consequences, even if one could not foresee them
beforehand as all consequences which directly come after the wrongdoing are not remote and come
under proximate. Further under this test, if one could foresee the damages, one is held liable for all the
direct consequences.
• Re Polemis Case (1921)
• This case was a landmark judgement in the test of directness. The court of appeal found the test of
reasonable foresight to be relevant whereas later the privy council upheld the test of directness. Facts of
this case are- Defendant was employed by the charterers of a ship to unload it. A plank was negligently
dropped into a hold which caused sparks with chemicals and petrol they were supposed to be
unloading. The sparks, in turn, lead to chemicals and petrol catching fire and burning the entire ship. It
was ultimately held that even though they could not have foreseen that the ship would be destroyed by
the negligently dropping of a plank they were found to be liable as the fire was a direct consequence.
• 2. The Foreseeability Test
• Today this test is preferred over the directness test. Sir Frederick Pollock also advocated for
this test, He opined, in cases Rigby v. Hewitt and Greenland v. Chaplin, that the “liability of
the defendant is only for those consequences which could have been foreseen by a reasonable
man placed in the circumstances of the wrongdoer.” In this test, an individual is held liable
only for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his wrongdoings. It is to be decided by
the court if the consequence was foreseeable beforehand or not.
• Wagon Mound Case
• For a while, the test of foreseeability lost its popularity to test of directness but it was the
case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. v. Morts Dock and Engg. Co. Ltd., also popularly
known as the Wagon Mound Case that bought it back in the limelight for jurists.
• Facts– The Wagon Mound was moored at a wharf in Sydney Harbour. Due to the negligence,
oil spilt into the water and was mixed with the flotsam and floated around to another wharf
where a ship was being repaired by welding. Because of the oil the flotsam caught fire and
ignited the wharf. The owner of the wharf claimed damage caused to him.
• The Supreme Court held the appellants liable on the precedent of Re
Polemis case, but when the matter reached the Privy Council the
judgement of the SC was reversed and Re Polemis case declared an
unfit for further rulings. It was held that appellants could not have
reasonably foreseen the damage to the respondent’s wharf.
• Therefore, forty years later the Privy Council rejected the test of
directness that was upheld in the Re Polemis case.
 Quantum of damages in Tort Law

• In the context of legal remedies, the term "quantum of damages" refers

to the measure or amount of damages awarded to a party who has
suffered harm or loss as a result of a breach of contract, tortious act, or
other legal wrong. It represents the monetary value assigned to
compensate the injured party for the harm they have suffered.
• Compensatory nature: The quantum of damages is primarily intended to
compensate the injured party for the actual harm or loss they have
incurred. It aims to place the injured party in the position they would
have been in if the breach or wrongdoing had not occurred.
• The damages awarded should reflect the amount necessary to restore
the injured party to their pre-injury financial position.
• Calculation of damages: The calculation of damages varies depending on the
nature of the harm suffered and the legal principles governing the specific case. In
tort cases, damages may be calculated based on factors such as medical expenses,
lost wages, pain and suffering, and other relevant factors.
• Foreseeability and causation: In determining the quantum of damages, the court
will consider whether the harm or loss was foreseeable and caused by the breach or
wrongful act. The damages awarded must be reasonably connected to the breach or
wrongdoing and directly flow from it.
• Mitigation: The injured party has a duty to mitigate their losses by taking
reasonable steps to minimse the harm or loss resulting from the breach or
wrongdoing. Failure to mitigate may limit the quantum of damages that can be
awarded.
• Discretion of the court: The assessment of the quantum of damages is
typically within the discretion of the court or jury, taking into account
the evidence presented, legal principles, and the specific circumstances
of the case. The court's goal is to provide fair and just compensation to
the injured party.
• The calculation of damages and the specific rules governing their
assessment can vary depending on the jurisdiction and the legal
framework applicable to the case.
 Eggshell skull rule

• The eggshell skull rule, also known as the thin skull rule, is a Common Law
doctrine that makes a defendant liable for the plaintiff's unforeseeable and
uncommon reactions to the defendant's negligent or intentional tort.
• If the defendant commits a tort against the plaintiff without a
complete defense, the defendant becomes liable for any injury that is
magnified by the plaintiff's peculiar characteristics. It is essential to
emphasize that the eggshell skull doctrine does not entitle the plaintiff
to compensation for an unrelated pre-existing injury.
• A common example of this doctrine is that a person's skull was very thin
due to the person’s own health condition, if the person gets into an
accident, the other person who caused the accident will be liable for
the actual damages, although the average person would not suffer the
same serious injuries in the same accident as the person with the thin skull.
 Kinds of Damages

• When the plaintiff suffers loss or injury due to the wrongful act of the defendant
then he is entitled to receive damages from the defendant. Damages are,
therefore, the sum of money which the plaintiff is entitled to receive from the
defendant(wrongdoer) as compensation; for the injuries or losses suffered by
him. Thus, the damage is the loss which is the cause of the award of the
damages. Damages are of the following kinds:
• Contempuous Damages
• These damages are awarded because it is felt that a lawsuit against the defendant
is for a very trivial issue, for which he/she shouldn’t have approached the Court.
The complainant may be legally correct here, however morally incorrect. Courts
in these situations grant compensation which is very minimal. Contemptuous
damages are often referred to as damages ‘derisory.’
• Nominal Damages
• In such situations where the civil right of the claimant is violated but there
is no damage, negligible damages are awarded. For instance, without
permission, a person walks across another’s property, thereby committing
trespass-the landowner takes no physical damage. The judge can grant
minimal damages in such a case, say few hundred rupees.
• In Ashby v. White, in the parliamentary elections in England, the
appellant wrongfully failed to register the complainant’s properly
tendered vote. There was no defeat for the appellant since the candidate
he would have chosen to vote for was chosen. The defendant was
responsible for a total of 5 pounds, along with the court expenses.
• Ordinary, Aggravated and Exemplary Damages
• ‘Compensatory’ damages are sometimes referred to as regular damages. By allowing
him cash reward equal to the injury sustained by him, ordinary damages are awarded to
compensate the wounded person equally. Aggravated damages are awarded where, on
account of the manner of commission of a tort, the judge raises the damages. Therefore,
an act committed willfully, maliciously or with excessive regard in the course of an
attack could call for a higher award. Aggravated damages are considered such damages.
• Exemplary damages are sometimes referred to as ‘punitive’,’ vengeful’ or
‘compensatory‘ damages. And the difference drawn by Pearson L.J. is that the penalties
of this sort are not meant as restitution for his loss to the complainant, but as what the
Americans call “smart money,” a form of retribution for the claimant and a threat against
unwelcome conduct to others. This purpose, though, is foreign to the general philosophy
of the law of tort.