LAW OF TORTS
The Master Compendium
Comprehensive Theory | Landmark Case Laws | 30 Critical Reasoning Passages
Page 1
, Module 1: Theoretical Foundations
1.1 Introduction and Scope
The Law of Tort is an instrument for social control and redistribution of loss. Unlike contract law, where duties
are self-imposed, tortious duties are imposed by the state and civil society. It is based on the principle of alterum
non laedere—not to hurt anyone by positive acts.
Winfield vs. Salmond: The debate centers on whether the law is a "Law of Tort" (General Liability) or "Law of
Torts" (Specific Pigeon Holes). Modern jurisprudence favors Winfield’s view, allowing courts to recognize new
torts as society evolves.
1.2 Fundamental Maxims of Liability
• Injuria Sine Damno: Legal injury without physical loss. Example: Trespass to land or person. (Ashby v. White)
• Damnum Sine Injuria: Physical loss without legal injury. Example: Trade competition. (Gloucester Grammar
School)
• Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium: Where there is a right, there is a remedy. No right can exist without a way to enforce it.
1.3 Comparative Analysis
Feature Tort Contract Crime
Duty Fixed by Law Fixed by Parties Fixed by Law
Privity Not Required Strict Privity N/A (Public Wrong)
Damages Unliquidated Liquidated N/A (Punishment)
Module 2: Specific Liabilities & Defenses
2.1 The Rule of Strict & Absolute Liability
Strict Liability: Established in Rylands v. Fletcher. If a person brings onto his land something likely to do mischief, he
is liable for its escape. However, defenses like 'Act of God' or 'Statutory Authority' apply.
Page 2
, Absolute Liability: Established in MC Mehta v. Union of India. There are no exceptions. This applies to enterprises
handling hazardous substances. The rationale is that the enterprise is best positioned to absorb the loss and manage the
risk.
2.2 General Defenses
1. Volenti Non Fit Injuria: Express or implied consent to risk. (e.g., Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club).
2. Inevitable Accident: An event which could not have been avoided by the exercise of ordinary care and skill.
3. Private Defense: Use of reasonable force to protect self or property.
Module 3: 30 Critical Reasoning Passages
Passage 1: The Standard of Care
Principle: A professional must exercise the skill expected of a reasonably competent member of their
profession.
Facts: A psychiatrist fails to ask a patient about suicidal thoughts, a standard practice. The patient later attempts
suicide.
Question: Applying the principle to the facts, what is the legal outcome?
▢ Option A: Defendant is liable because the core elements of the principle are met.
▢ Option B: Defendant is not liable due to a specific exception or missing element.
▢ Option C: Liability is shared as both parties failed their respective duties.
▢ Option D: The matter is not a tort but falls under criminal law.
Page 3
The Master Compendium
Comprehensive Theory | Landmark Case Laws | 30 Critical Reasoning Passages
Page 1
, Module 1: Theoretical Foundations
1.1 Introduction and Scope
The Law of Tort is an instrument for social control and redistribution of loss. Unlike contract law, where duties
are self-imposed, tortious duties are imposed by the state and civil society. It is based on the principle of alterum
non laedere—not to hurt anyone by positive acts.
Winfield vs. Salmond: The debate centers on whether the law is a "Law of Tort" (General Liability) or "Law of
Torts" (Specific Pigeon Holes). Modern jurisprudence favors Winfield’s view, allowing courts to recognize new
torts as society evolves.
1.2 Fundamental Maxims of Liability
• Injuria Sine Damno: Legal injury without physical loss. Example: Trespass to land or person. (Ashby v. White)
• Damnum Sine Injuria: Physical loss without legal injury. Example: Trade competition. (Gloucester Grammar
School)
• Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium: Where there is a right, there is a remedy. No right can exist without a way to enforce it.
1.3 Comparative Analysis
Feature Tort Contract Crime
Duty Fixed by Law Fixed by Parties Fixed by Law
Privity Not Required Strict Privity N/A (Public Wrong)
Damages Unliquidated Liquidated N/A (Punishment)
Module 2: Specific Liabilities & Defenses
2.1 The Rule of Strict & Absolute Liability
Strict Liability: Established in Rylands v. Fletcher. If a person brings onto his land something likely to do mischief, he
is liable for its escape. However, defenses like 'Act of God' or 'Statutory Authority' apply.
Page 2
, Absolute Liability: Established in MC Mehta v. Union of India. There are no exceptions. This applies to enterprises
handling hazardous substances. The rationale is that the enterprise is best positioned to absorb the loss and manage the
risk.
2.2 General Defenses
1. Volenti Non Fit Injuria: Express or implied consent to risk. (e.g., Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club).
2. Inevitable Accident: An event which could not have been avoided by the exercise of ordinary care and skill.
3. Private Defense: Use of reasonable force to protect self or property.
Module 3: 30 Critical Reasoning Passages
Passage 1: The Standard of Care
Principle: A professional must exercise the skill expected of a reasonably competent member of their
profession.
Facts: A psychiatrist fails to ask a patient about suicidal thoughts, a standard practice. The patient later attempts
suicide.
Question: Applying the principle to the facts, what is the legal outcome?
▢ Option A: Defendant is liable because the core elements of the principle are met.
▢ Option B: Defendant is not liable due to a specific exception or missing element.
▢ Option C: Liability is shared as both parties failed their respective duties.
▢ Option D: The matter is not a tort but falls under criminal law.
Page 3
