LAW OF TORTS

UNIT 1
UNIT 1: EVOLUTION OF TORTS
• The word Torts is derived from the Latin word ‘Tortum’ which means
twisted/crooked/wrong.
• Tort in French corresponds to the English word wrong and the Roman
expression delict.
• In a society when a person turns directly from the normal course of
conduct to a person who injures or causes harm to another, he is
considered to have committed a tort – a conduct that is twisted or
crooked.
• A person who commits such devious acts is marked as a tortfeasor.
• Tort is when the act of one party causes some harm to the other party
due to negligence, carelessness on the part of another party.
• The one who sues is known as ‘plaintiff’ and the one who is sued is
known as ‘defendant’.
• A tort is
• a wrongful action
• violates personal rights, property rights, or dignity rights,
• resulting in civil action against them.
• Torts are basically civil wrongs which lead to civil
damages.
• These are rights which people generally have against
the whole world. (Rights in rem)
Types of Torts
• There are three basic types of torts:
1.Intentional torts, where someone intentionally committed a wrong
and caused an injury to someone else. Eg., Assault, battery, False
imprisonment, trespass, intentional infliction of Emotional distress
2.Negligent torts, where someone violated a duty they owed to the
person harmed, such as jumping a red light and causing an accident.
3.Strict liability torts, where it does not matter whether there was
intent or a duty breached; the defendant is liable because the matter
is so important. Strict Liability typically applies to product liability. For
example, if a defective product caused an injury, then the
manufacturer or store that sold it could be held liable.
Remedies in tort
• A tort is a civil breach committed against another
resulting in legal action.
• In these cases, the injured party is eligible to sue for
damages, or compensation, for what happened to them.
This is often seen in personal injury cases, where the
plaintiff in the claim sues the defendant for financial
obligations related to their injuries, losses, and more like
medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering etc
PRINCIPLES OF TORT LIABILITY
• Damnum Sine Injuria – Damage without injury
• It means an actual loss which occurs without the infringement of
any legal rights
• This is because the mere loss of money or money’s worth does not
amount to any tort. In order to constitute some tort, real violation of some
rights must take place in the form of legal damage.
• No liability can arise in such cases. For example, let’s say a person has
been owning a stationery shop on a street for several years. If his
business rival opens a bigger stationery shop nearby, this person cannot
sue him for his diminishing profits. This is because no legal injury occurs
to him.
• Glouchester Grammar School Case [1410]
• Mogul steamship co., v Mc Gregor Gow and CO [1892]
• Mayor of Bradford Corporation v Pickles [1895]
• Chesmore v Richards
• Injuria Sine Damno means 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.
• For example, trespassing of property is a serious violation of a
person’s right to protect his property. In such cases, the trespasser
is liable to pay compensation even if he causes no real damage.
• Ashby v White [1703]
• Bhim Singh v State of J&K [1986]
• 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.
• In order for vicarious liability to arise, there should be some legal
relationship between the defendant and the third party. In
other words, the law must be able to attribute and extend liability
to the third party.
• 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.
• For example, imagine that a spectator suffered injuries after
a cricket ball hit him on his head. The spectator cannot claim
compensation from the batsman or any organizer in this case.
This is because the law presumes that he was aware of these
risks and still went to watch the match.
• Strict Liability and Absolute Liability: These two principles levy liabilities
on industrial and business ventures when their commercial
activities cause damages to the public. They basically state that
liability in some cases should arise even in the absence of
intention or negligence.
• The rule of 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.
• 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.
• In rule of absolute liability, however, he cannot take any
defence whatsoever and has to pay compensation in all
cases. This happens in cases of damages arising from
hazardous activities, like the Bhopal Gas Disaster.
For some Brain Gym!
(a) A third party can be liable to pay
(1) Absolute liability
damages.

(b) Plaintiff assumes and accepts the risks. (2) Injuria sine damno

(c) Damage occurs without injuries. (3) Volenti non fit injuria

(d) The defendant cannot take any

(4) Vicarious liability
defences.

(e) Infringement of rights without losses. (5) Damnum sine injuria

Evolution of torts
• Law of torts is based on the principles of equity, justice and good conscience.
• The law of torts is based on the principles of ‘common law’ which is mainly the
English law of torts. The law of tort is applied selectively in Indian courts keeping
in mind if it suits the circumstances of Indian society.
• Justice Bhagwati in M.C Mehta v. Union of India observed that:
“We have to evolve new principles and lay down new norms which will adequately
deal with new problems which arise in a highly industrialized economy. We cannot
allow our judicial thinking to be constructed by reference to the law as it prevails
in England or for the matter of that in any foreign country. We are certainly
prepared to receive light from whatever source it comes but we have to build our
own jurisprudence.”
Theory of torts
• Winfield theory of tort: According to the law of “tort” theory, all the
unjustifiable harm for which there is no excuse will be treated as a tort. The
Chief supporter of this theory in Winfield, according to him if any injury is
done to the neighbor he can sue the other person no matter if the wrong
happened has a particular name or not. The person held liable should prove
lawful justification. Indian judiciary supported Winfield’s theory in the case
of M.C Mehta v. Union of India.
• Salmond theory of torts: Salmond was the supporter of the law of “torts”,
according to him the liability under this law arises only when the wrong is
covered under one or other nominate torts. This theory is also known as
Pigeon hole theory. In order to succeed under this theory, the plaintiff should
place the wrong under the already present torts.
Definition of torts
1) Salmond – “ tort is a civil wrong for which remedy is
a common-law action for unliquidated damages and
which is not exclusively the breach of contract, or breach
of trust, or other merely equitable obligation.”
2) Winfield- “tortuous liability arises from breach of duty
fixed by law, this duty is towards persons generally, and
its breach is redressable by an action for unliquidated
damages.”
3)Burdick defines a tort as an “an act or omission which
unlawfully violates a person’s right created by law and
for which appropriate remedy is common law action.
Essential elements of a tort:-

1) Civil wrong –
First of all, a tort is a civil wrong and not a crime which has remedy based on common law
principles. If a civil wrong has the remedy in a statute then such civil wrong cannot be
termed as a civil wrong.

2) Violation of right in rem /Legal damage –

In tort, there is a violation of a right in rem. Right in rem means right available against the
whole world. Right in personam means right available against a person only.

3) Legal Right –
The infringed right must be a legal right or a right which is fixed by law., apart from the
consent of parties.

4) Common law action –

The remedy should be based on common law principles for which no legislature made law
exists
.
5) Legal Remedy –
The remedy based on common law should be by way of damages, which is compensation
in money. Also, other remedies are injunction, specific restitution, are available under the
law of torts.
Difference between tort and breach of contract-
Although both the concepts are similar in various aspects, the distinction can be explained as
follows :

i) Nature of right –
In a tort right in rem (right against the whole world) is violated. While in breach of contract
there is an infringement of a right in personam (right against the person).

ii) Privity –
In the contract, there is privity ( legal relationship) between parties.
But in tort, no such privity exists and infringement is done against the will of party injured.

iii) Consent –
In tort there exist no consent, & right is infringed against the will of another person.
But in Contract obligation is based on the consent of parties to the contract.

iv) Liability-
In tort, the liability is imposed by the law while in contract, the liability is fixed by consent of
parties, by the free will of themselves.

v) Period of limitation.-
In case of breach of contract, the time of limitation ( for the suit to be filed in limitation
period) starts from the date of the breach.
Difference between Tort & Crime –

Some acts can be both, i.e. tort and crime. e.g. Assault, libel, etc. For such acts both
remedies are enforced by Courts., i .e. compensation as well as punishment of
imprisonment, fine.

1) Nature-

A tort is a private wrong or violation of the right of an individual.

As regards the concept of crime is concerned it is against the whole society which
affects the rights and duties of the whole society.

2) Procedure –

In the law of torts, the suit is filed by the injured person himself.

On the other hand for a crime under criminal law procedure is taken and conducted
in the name of the state.

3) Remedy –
In the law of tort, the wrongdoer has to pay compensation to the injured party.
• Tort law is a continuous and evolving law.
• It is not codified
• Boulton v Hardy (1597)-first case in which the term tort was used
• “ubi jus ibi remedium” (where there is a right there is a remedy) is the
central theme of torts
• Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1881 developed the fault theory. According to
him the basis of tort liability is fault or failure to take due care and
precaution that a prudent man is expected to take under the
circumstances.
• Sir Morton J Horwitz developed the strict liability theory and differed
with Holmes that fault theory was the original standard of law. The fault
theory existed only in the 19th century.
 Development of tort law in India
• In India, the origin of torts is related to Charter of 1726. Under charter
1726 the English courts were established in three presidencies i.e.
Bombay, Calcutta and Madras which were known as ‘Mayor courts’.
These courts were working under ‘Common law’
• In Naval Kishore vs. Rameshwar Nath And Ors. ( A.I.R. 1995 Allahabad
594) it was stated that the rules of law of torts of England should be
made applicable as per the Indian atmosphere, that is, corresponding
to traditions and Customs of it.
• Section 9 of CPC 1908 empowers the civil court to try all suits of a civil
nature unless it is expressly or impliedly barred. Includes tortuous
cases and liabilities
• Sir Marc Galanter said that India is a tort deficient country and needs
proper codified law of torts.
• Motor Vehicles Act, Consumer Protection Act are some of the codified
tort laws.
Q & A time
Which of the following interests is not protected
by the law of tort?
1. Loss of commercial profit due to competition
2.Reputation
3.Physical safety
4. Peaceful enjoyment of one’s land
UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM
• Ubi jus ibi remedium is a Latin maxim which means that wherever there is a right,
there is remedy.
• It consists of two main ingredients : jus and remedium. Where jus means legal
authority to do or demand something from and remedium means rights of action.
• It means that if there is any violation of the legal right, then the law provides a
remedy to the affected person.
• This doesn’t mean that for every wrong there is a remedy.
• Justice Stephen had famously remarked that maxim would be correctly stated if
maxim were to be reversed to say that where there is no legal remedy, there is no
legal wrong.
Case I: Donoghue v Stevenson
• This case is also known as the snail in the beer bottle case. This event took place in Paisley, Scotland in
1928, where Ms. May Donoghue was given a bottle of ginger beer which had bought by her friend.
• Since, the bottle was opaque in colour from outside nothing is visible inside. Donoghue consumed
most of its contents before she became aware of the snail had been there inside the bottle and she
later fell ill.

Donoghue then took a legal action against the manufacture of the ginger beer, Mr. David Stevenson.
The house of lords held that the manufacture owed a duty of care to her, which was breached.
• Manufacturers have a legal duty of care to the ultimate consumers of their products if it is not possible
for defects to be identified before the goods are received.
• The case laid the foundation of the modern law of negligence in common law jurisdictions worldwide,
as well as in Scotland, establishing general principles of the duty of care.
Essentials Of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium:

• This legal maxim is applicable only when any legal injury has occurred
to any person, if no legal injury is caused then the legal maxim damnum
sine injuria is used which implies that any harm without any legal injury
• Any unlawful of wrongful act must have been done which violates the
legal rights of a person.
• This maxim can only be applied wherever this right exists and can be
recognized by the court of law. if no legal injury has been caused then
the maxim damnum sine injuria will be used which means damage
without any legal injury.
Limitations Of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium:
• We cannot apply this maxim if any proper remedy is given in case of any
breach of rights under law.
• This maxim cannot be applied to moral and political wrong which are
not actionable.
• If plaintiff is negligent or there is negligence by the side of the plaintiff
then this maxim will not be applicable.
• In case of public nuisance unless a plaintiff shows that he suffered more
injured then other members of the society , this maxim will not be
applicable.
• Breach of trusts like personal commitments or marriage or promises
vows without consideration.
Case II:- Bhim Singh V. State Of Jammu And
Kashmir (AIR 1986 SC 494)

• In this case, there is an applicant who is the MLA of the Jammu and Kashmir
parliamentary gathering. While he was on his way to the parliamentary
meeting, he was inappropriately captured by a cop and he was not able to
be introduced before the judge on time and he had a lawful right to go to
the gathering.

His fundamental right under article 21 under the Indian constitution has
been violated. The Supreme Court considered that the respondent was
liable for violating the applicant’s rights and it granted him a damage of
rupees 50000 to the candidate for encroachment of his fundamental right.
Case III: Ashby V. White

• This is basically a case of English tort law which is related to the violation of
right and remedy provided by law.
• Plaintiff Mr. Ashby is a registered voter but he was interrupted from voting in
the elections. So there is a violation of fundamental right which is Right to vote,
by the officer Mr. white. The candidate, whom he wanted to vote, won the
election. Now, he wants the compensation of the violation of his legal right.
• The court held that though the plaintiff has not suffered any damage his right
to vote has been infringed and he was interrupted from exercising his legal
right. Therefore the plaintiff was awarded compensation in the form of
damages.
Case IV: Maretti V. William:

• In the case of Maretti v. William, the plaintiff has

deposited his fund in defendant’s bank and the accused
refused to honour cheque to the plaintiff although he
has sufficient balance in his account. So the court in this
case held that the defendant is liable for all the loss
incurred by the plaintiff. There is legal violation of this
legal maxim too, so this maxim was invoked to render
justice to the plaintiff stating that the legal right of the
plaintiff has been revoked.
Case V: Shivkumar Chadha v. Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (1993) 3 SCC 161
• In Shivkumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of
Delhi, the Supreme court held that where statutory
enactments does not provide any remedy but only
creates rights and liabilities, if any person complains of
his rights being violated or wrongly affected such
person can approach the civil court on the basis of the
principle of legislation that where there is a right, there
is a remedy.
Conclusion
• Equity courts are the court of justice. The person whose rights are
violated has a right to stand before the court of law. This maxim does
not say that there is a remedy for every wrong. There are many
political and moral rights which are recognized by law and the law
does not provide a remedy for that. The basic idea behind ubi jus ibi
remedium is that no wrong will be unredressed if it can be remedied
by the court. The maxim is generally true as no right exists without a
remedy. The maxim is accepted by the law of torts and provides a
remedy in each and every case as this doctrine of common law in
England provides a remedy for each and every wrong.
Mental Elements-Intention, Motive,
Malice in Law and Fact
• An act, otherwise lawful, can not generally be brought
into action by an averment/allegation that it was done
with evil motive. An evil motive in itself does not
amount to injury or legal error. If a person has the right
to do something, then his motive is irrelevant.
Motive
• A motive is a person’s state of mind that inspires him to
do an act.
• It usually means the purpose of the act’s commission.
Motive is generally irrelevant in tort law.
• Motive is the ultimate object with which an act is done.
The immediate purpose is the intention.
• Motive is the ultimate cause of an action.
• Motive, in criminal law, induces the criminal action.
Therefore, to establish criminal liability, motive must be
proved.
Motive in tort
• However, motive is not essential for a tort action to be
maintained.
• Just because a motive is good does not make a wrongful
act, legal.
• Similarly, a lawful act does not become wrongful due to
improper, evil motive.
Bradford Corporation v Pickles [1895] AC 587
• The plaintiffs owned land below which were water springs used to supply water
to Bradford town for more than 40 years. The defendant owned land over the
plaintiffs on a higher level. There was a natural reservoir under the defendant’s
land and water flowed from that reservoir down to the springs of the plaintiffs.
The defendant, however, sank a shaft into his land to alter water flow. This
significantly reduced the amount of water flowing into the springs of the
plaintiffs. There was sufficient proof to suggest that the defendant was
following this course of action, not to give himself any immediate advantage,
but merely to deprive the plaintiffs of water. The plaintiffs insisted that this was
malicious and that they had the right to an injunction to stop the defendant
from acting in this way.
• Lord Halsbury and Lord Watson held that state of mind of the person doing the
act cannot affect the right to do it. If it was a lawful act, however ill the motive
might be, he had a right to do it. Motives and intentions are absolutely
irrelevant.
Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal A.I.R.
(1975) All 132,
• Plaintiff’ s case was that he had made construction of 16 shops on the old
foundations of the building known as Garhi and the defendant Town Area Committee
acting through its Chairman and Vice-Chairman, who are defendants 2 and 3 illegally
demolished these constructions. By this demolition plaintiff suffered a loss of Rs.
1,000. According to him the notice under Section 186 of the U.P. Municipal Act was
bad as it gave to the plaintiff only two hours’ time to demolish the constructions and
not a reasonable time as contemplated in Section 302 of the Act. It was also asserted
that demolition, after this notice was bad as the notice was served at a time when
the plaintiff was out of station. The action was said to be mala fide.
• A suit for compensation was filed against the town area committee for the
demolition of constructions protruding on the road. The court found that the
plaintiff was guilty of constructing the building illegally without obtaining proper
sanction from the town area committee. The High Court held that the demolition of
an unauthorized building is not injuria to the owner and therefore despite the
damage he might suffer he cannot get compensation.
• “Every injury imports damage but every damage is not injury”-Discuss
the statement in the light of decided cases.
Intention –Intentional tort,
unintentional tort
• Intentional tort-some actions require intention, otherwise they will not be
committed
• Garratt v. Dailey, 46 Wash. 2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091 (Wash. 1955)
• In 1955, a young boy whose name was Brian pulled a chair from
underneath Ruth Garratt as she went to sit down. Ruth fell and broke her
hip because of Brian’s chair-pulling. Ruth filed a lawsuit against the family
of Brian claiming to have acted intentionally, causing her personal injury.
Although Brian did not intend to cause injury, the court found that the act
resulted in the hip being broken and awarded Ruth $11,000 in damages.
Brian’s family appealed on the grounds that children 5 years of age could
not be held liable for an intentional tort. The court ruled that children can
be held liable and that the intent element is in place if the person knew
with certainty that the act carries a risk of injury.
Battery and assault
• The difference between battery and assault is, in battery, physical contact is
mandatory while in assault, physical contact is not mandatory as the purpose is to
threaten not to harm.
Trespass
• It is the intentional, unreasonable invasion of property, land, person or goods. The
unreasonable interference can harass or harm the other person, however slight it
may be. The owner of the property’s legal right is infringed because the
misappropriation or exploitation of his right deprives him of his right to enjoy the
benefit of the property.
False Imprisonment
• It is the person’s unlawful confinement without his will. It is not necessary to place a
person behind bars, a mere impossibility of escape from a certain area against the
person’s will is sufficient to constitute false imprisonment wrong. It includes the use
of physical force (actual expression of force is not always required), a physical barrier
such as a locked room, invalid use of legal authority. False arrest is the part of false
imprisonment that includes police detention of the person without legal authority.
Malicious prosecution falls under the category of false imprisonment.
False imprisonment
Wrongful imprisonment occurs when a person (who does
not have the legal right or justification) is intentionally
restricts another person from exercising his freedom.
When someone intentionally restricts another person’s
freedom, he can be found liable for false imprisonment in
civil and criminal courts. The factors which constitute
false imprisonment are:
1.Probable cause of imprisonment.
2.Plaintiff’s knowledge for imprisonment.
3.Intent of defendant during imprisonment and
confinement period matters.
False imprisonment is applicable to both private and government
detention.
Under criminal law, whether the restraint is total or partial, the same is
actionable. When the restraint is total and the person is prevented
from going out of certain circumscribed limits, the offence is that of
‘wrongful confinement’ as defined in Section 340 of IPC.
When it comes to the police, proving false imprisonment is sufficient to
obtain the writ of Habeas Corpus. It is not mandatory that the person
should be put behind bars, but he should be confined in an area from
which there are no possible ways of escape except the person’s will
who has confined him. Depending on the laws of a particular
jurisdiction, wrongful imprisonment can also be a crime, as well as
intentional tort.
• Some of the situational examples of false imprisonment are as follows:
• The defendant’s locking the plaintiff in a room without his permission is a case of
false imprisonment. However, if the plaintiff is aware of the fact, it is not false
imprisonment.
• A security guard or a police officer detains an individual due to their appearances or
use of some religious symbols for an unreasonable amount of time also falls under
the category of false imprisonment.
• An armed robber in a bank restraining the right of the employees and customers to
move freely is another example of false imprisonment.
• False imprisonment in nursing is considered when any patient is restrained from
meeting their relatives in the hospital or nursing home or is subjected to neglect or
abuse there by the caregivers. It also includes deliberate medication given to a
patient without their consent under physical or emotional threat.
• Terrorist organizations or criminal groups taking hostages of innocent people is
considered as false imprisonment since the movements of the people taken hostage
are severely restrained and they remain in a serious and life-threatening condition.
• Consent of the plaintiff
• An important element that decides whether any situation should be considered as
false imprisonment or not is the consent provided by the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is
either aware of the facts or has provided consent to be restrained, it is not considered
a false imprisonment. However, the consent provided by the plaintiff should be free of
any fraud, coercion, or undue influence.
• The landmark mental health law case of R (L) v Bournewood Community and Mental
Health NHS Trust (1997) deals with the fact of whether the admission of a mentally ill
patient with the capacity to provide consent to a psychiatric hospital amounts to false
imprisonment or not. The plaintiff was an autistic person who was admitted to the
hospital for nearly thirty years. Thereafter, he was discharged and lived under the
supervision of a caregiver. While attending the hospital for a regular checkup, he
became extremely agitated and was once again admitted to the hospital.
• A case was filed on his behalf claiming that the action of hospital authorities
amounted to wrongful detention since the patient himself did not provide the
consent. The Queen’s Bench Division held that the patient hardly had the capacity to
comprehend the situation and hence he was not detained.
Defences of False Imprisonment
• Valid arrest
• Consent to restraint
• Probable cause (Sometimes imprisonment can be justified on the
basis that the defendant was acting in support of the law. The blame
for the legal justification lies on the defendant.)
Unintentional Tort
• The defendant causes injury to the plaintiff, but without
any mala fide intention.
• They could have caused the injury because they were
either negligent or reckless.
• In the case of unintentional tort, it may be noted that
the injury is caused by the omission of the “duty of
care” that a reasonable and prudent man should have
considered.
Negligence, Fault and No fault liability
• In negligence, the defendant causes injury to the plaintiff without any malafide
intention.
• The injury is caused due to omission of the “duty of care” which a reasonable and
prudent man ought to have considered..

Misfeasance-improper performance of a lawful act.

• Negligence, or non-feasance-failure to do an act which one is legally obliged to do
(an act of omission)
• Fault/mistake that leads to injury to someone, who has a right of action in a court
of law against the tort-feaser. Here neither intention, nor, motive is material.
• Despite fault being an essential condition of liability, the law of tort also contain
“no fault liability”-strict liability. In the case of M.C.Mehta V. Union Of India, the
Supreme Court stated the rule of strict liability invoked in the case of Rylands V.
Fletcher. Similarly, in case of hazardous and dangerous industries, courts have
invoked the rule of absolute liability.
Wilkinson v. Downton (1897) 2 QB 57
The defendant joked to the plaintiff that her husband met with an
accident and was admitted to a hospital.
She was shocked by this news and fell seriously ill.
She subsequently sued the defendant for damages under tort.
The defendant claimed he never wanted to harm the plaintiff, but was
only trying to cut a joke.
The court dismissed his claim, holding him liable. Here, the court
observed that mere intention was not an essential factor in tort. The
defendant was aware of the natural and probable consequences of his
act which caused the plaintiff to suffer damage. He was therefore liable,
whether he intended to do so or not.
The distinction between Motive and
Intention
•
Motive is “the ulterior intent.”
• The ultimate object with which an act is done is the motive, whereas
the intention is the immediate purpose.
• For example, A, steals a loaf of bread from B’s bakery shop. A is liable
for theft as well as for illegal trespass, though A’s motive was to feed
his starving child, not to cause loss to B.
Malice
• When an act is done with bad intention, it is
called malice.
• Malice-in-Fact refers to performance of an act which
may be legal, but with ill-will, or hatred, or bad
intention.
• Whereas, Malice-in-Law, refers to a wrongful act, done
intentionally, without just cause or legal excuse.
• Malice in Law- Viscount Haldane described malice in Law as:
” A person who inflicts an injury upon another person in contravention
of the law is not allowed to say that he did so with an innocent mind;
he is taken to know the law, and he must act within the law. He may,
therefore, be guilty of malice in law, although, so far the state of his
mind is concerned, he acts ignorantly and in that sense innocently.”
• Malice in fact ( evil motive)- It means an evil motive for a wrongful act.
When the defendant does a wrongful act with a feeling of spite,
vengeance or ill will, the act is said to be done maliciously
• Case Laws regarding Malice in Fact
• In the case of Town Area Committee vs Prabhu Dayal, it
has been held that if the act was done is legal, then
the motive is considered to be immaterial for the facts of
the case.
• In the case of Bradford Cooperation vs Pickle, Lord
Halsbury held that if an act is a lawful one, it cannot be
rendered as illegal how severe the animosity may be. He
further observed that ill motive or malice intention has
very little significance in such cases.
• In the case of Vishnu Basudeo v. T.H.S Pearse, the court
declared that the legality of the act has to be taken into
consideration. If the act is lawful, the motive behind
commission of the act has the least significance.