[COURSE OUTLINE:LAW OF TORT] NLUO 2014-2015

National Law University, Orissa

SEMESTER I: B.A.LL.B & B.B.A.LL.B .

Course Outline
Law of Tort

Course Teacher
Prof [Dr] B.Hydervali

Page 1 of 11

[COURSE OUTLINE:LAW OF TORT] NLUO 2014-2015

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, ORISSA

SYLLABUS-LAW OF TORT
Course Description
Tort law relates to those formal rules which are applied by courts in reconciling
conflicts of civil nature between the members of the society. Law has to protect
the rights of persons in a society.

The Tort law rules create civil liability that

leads to non penal consequences. It does it primarily in two ways: by

compensating the wrong suffered, and by punishing the wrong-doer. Through the
process of identifying wrongs and compensating them through the award of
damages, it attempts to allocate losses or distributive risks which are inevitable
in the modern society in a manner conducive to justice, equity and fairness. The
more industrialized the society the more complicated the life. In such situation,
this branch of law grows and assumes importance in ordering just social
relations. It is said that the progress of a nation can measured in terms of
development of law of tort in that country. Thus this course will introduce to the
students the fundamentals of tort law theory and practice including defenses.
Precisely this one semester course examines the legal principles underlying civil
liability for injuries to persons and property. Topics covered include the
foundation of law of tort, selected topics in intentional torts, general defences,
negligence, and torts related to human body and property. One module will be
given to the discussion of emerging areas of law of tort viz. family tort,
constitutional tort and cyber tort.

Object of the Course

Page 2 of 11

[COURSE OUTLINE:LAW OF TORT] NLUO 2014-2015

The primary goal of this course is to familiarize the students with the basics of
law of tort and to make them appreciate emerging areas of this branch such as
Constitutional tort, Cyber tort, Economic tort and Family tort.

Objectives of the Course

At the conclusion of this course students will be able to approach a factual
scenario, and analyze what torts exist therein. Students will also be able to
discuss any defenses available to all parties and the appropriate remedies. The
main objectives of this course are :
To learn the major principles fundamental to the operation of the tort
system
To become familiar with most of the important and commonly litigated
torts
To learn the leading case authorities in tort law and the important
legislation that impacts on it
To develop skills of legal analysis and argument.
In addition, this course will consider tort theory and criticism, in order to identify
the functions of tort law, what it is that tort law seeks to achieve in the context of
society and its institutions, including the economic system, and to assess it
against possible alternatives. Learning about the major torts, related principles
and criticisms will enable you to understand the tort system and to learn about
other torts on your own as you encounter them in your readings and research

Evaluation System
The examination system of the University promotes constant monitoring and
ensures transparency of the of the evaluation methods. Keeping this in mind
University has adopted two tiers of assessment method viz. continuous
assessment and end-term written examination. Skills of reading, research

Page 3 of 11

[COURSE OUTLINE:LAW OF TORT] NLUO 2014-2015

analysis and writing will be assessed through project work. Efforts will be made
to ensure that the examination method is innovative and capturing of student
interest. In order to promote transparency and objectivity, detailed evaluation
report of project assignments as also answer scripts are given to students for
their perusal.

The performance of the students on this course is assessed on the basis of

100 marks. The overall assessment of 100 marks is divided into sessional
work (25 marks project and 5 marks for attendance and discipline) and
end semester examinations (45 marks).

Projectl Work (25 Marks): Sessional work is planned by the

course teacher in his discretion. The tentative plan of the sessional
work will be on the following basis:

Assessment Mode
Content of the paper
References/Citation/Bibliogra
Group
phy
/individual
Group Presentation
Project
Attendance and class
discipline
Mid Term Exam

Marks
15 Marks
5 Marks
5 Marks
5 marks
25 Marks

Group Work
You will have the opportunity to work with a small group of four students
from class to do the assigned work and share your conclusions and
observations through presentation before the class with the instructor and
other students. At the end of the semester the group members will submit
a research paper which should be of publishable quality.

Lecture Plan
Modules

Title

Module One

Introduction , Definition Eight Lectures

and Nature of Tort
Remoteness of Damage
Six Lectures
General Defenses
Eight Lectures

Module Two
Module Three
Page 4 of 11

Number of Lectures

[COURSE OUTLINE:LAW OF TORT] NLUO 2014-2015

Module Four
Module Five
Module Six
Module Seven
Module Eight
Module Nine
Module Ten

Vicarious Liability
Strict/Absolute Liability
Negligence
Torts Against Human
Body
Tort Against Property
Emerging Torts
Motor Vehicles Law

Six Lectures
Six Lectures
Six Lectures
Six Lectures
Six Lectures
Six Lectures
Six Lectures

Course Outline
Module One: - Introduction, Nature and Foundations of
Law of Tort
Definition and Nature of the Law of Tort.

Law of Tort or Law of Torts.

Difference between Tort & Crime, Tort & Contract. Basis of the tortuous liability;
Basic legal maxims for Determination of liability; viz Ubi jus Ibi remedium,
Injuria Sine Damnum and Damnum Sine Injuria.
Referred Cases

Ashby v. White (1703)2 LR 938

Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1086
Saheli v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi AIR 1990 SC 513
Gloucester Grammer School case (14190 V.B. Hill 11.
Mayor of Broadford Corporation v. Pickles (1895) AC 587
Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir AIR 1986 SC 494
Usha Ben v. Bhagya Laxmi Chitra Mandir, AIR 1978 Guj.

Module Two: - Remoteness of Damage

Remoteness of Damage. Various principles for fixing the liability and to ascertain
the damages for the wrong committed viz But for Test, Directness Test (In Re

Page 5 of 11

[COURSE OUTLINE:LAW OF TORT] NLUO 2014-2015

Polemise Case) and the Doctrine of Reasonable foresight (The Wagon Mound
Case).
Referred Cases

Scott v. Shephered (1773)2 WBI 892

In Re Polemise Case (1921)3 KB 560 CA
Wagaon Mound Case (1961)AC 388
Leisbosch Dredger v. Edison, (1933) AC 449 HL.

Module Three: -

General

Defenses

for

the

Tortuous

Liability
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

Volenti non fit injuria

Vis Major (Act of God)
Inevitable Accident
Necessity
Statutory Authority, Judicial and Quasi Judicial, Parental and QuasiParental Authorities.
Act of Third Parties
Plaintiffs Default
Mistake

Referred Cases

Hall v. Brookaland Auto Racing Club

Smith v. Backer (1981) AC 325
Stanley v. Powell (1891)11 Q.B. 86
Heynes v. Harwood (1935) 1 KB 146

Module Four: Liability for the Wrong Committed by Other

Persons i.e. Vicarious Liability
Liability for the Wrong Committed by Other Person.
A. Principle of Vicarious Liability and its basis. Qui facit per alium facit per se and
respondent superior.
o

Master and Servants,

Principle and Agent

Partners of a firm

Page 6 of 11

[COURSE OUTLINE:LAW OF TORT] NLUO 2014-2015

o

States Liability: Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity in reference to the

Crown Proceedings Act 1947, Federal Torts Claims Act 1946 and
Article 300 of the Indian Constitution.

B. Joint Tort Feasors, joint and several liabilities in payment of damages.

Referred Cases

Loyd v. Grame Smith &Co. (1912) AC 716

Brook v. Boole (1928) 2 KB 578
Marryweather v. Nixon (1799) 101 ER 1337.
Nicholes v. Marshland (1876)2 Ex.D. 1
Smith v. London and South Western Railway Co. (1870) LR 6
Peninsular and Steam Navigation Co. Secretary of State for India (1861) 5
Bom. H.C.R. App. 2
State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati Devi AIR 1962 SC 933
Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P. AIR 1965 SC 1039
N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of A.P.(1994)6 SCC 205
Chairman Railway Board v. Chandrima Das (2000)2 SCC 465

Module Five: Liabilities Based on Fault and Strict Liability/

Absolute Liability
A. The central idea in tort law is that liability is based not so much on acting
badly or wrongfully, but on committing a wrong. At the same time, a victim's
claim to recover for harm to her depends on the wrong the injurer has committed
being a wrong to her. It is not enough that the injurer has committed a wrong
and that she (the victim) has suffered as a consequence. The defendant's liability
to the victim and the victim's claim against the defendant depend on the
defendant's having breached a duty of care to the victim.
B. Principle of Strict Liability/Absolute Liability
The doctrine as laid down by Justice Blackburn in the famous case of Reyland v.
Fletcher and the exceptions thereof. The application of this doctrine in the India

Page 7 of 11

[COURSE OUTLINE:LAW OF TORT] NLUO 2014-2015

and the changes which occurred after M.C. Mehtas case (The Principle of
Absolute Liability).
Referred Cases
Reyland v. Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 30
M.C. Mehta v.Union of India (1987)1 SCC395
Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Case

Module Six: - Negligence, Contributory Negligence and

Nuisance
Negligence as a tort and its various dimensions in the present world viz.
Professional negligence, psychiatric damage; economic loss. foresight of harm as
test of the existence of negligence, proximate cause and intervening cause,
concurring negligence of the third person. Contributory negligence, last
opportunity rule and Res Ipsa Loquitur.
Injury caused by plaintiffs negligence, Injury Caused by defendants negligence,
concurring contributory negligence, representation in contributory negligence
and imputed negligence.
Nuisance and interference with real rights, history of nuisance, remedy for
nuisance, nuisance in conduct of business, public nuisance.
Reference Cases

Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. V. State of Gujarat 1994(4) SCC 1
Bolam V. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957)2 All ER 118
Donoghue v. Stevenson, 1932, AC 562
Davis v. Redcliffe, (1990)2 AER 536
E V. Dorret County Council (1994)4 All ER 640 (CA)
Home Office v. Dorset Yatch Company(1970) AC 1004(HL)
M.P. State Road Transport Corp. v. Basanti bai (1971) MPLJ 706 (DB)
Bourhill v. Young (1943) AC 92
Mc loughlin v. O Brian (1983) AC 410
Indian Air Lines v. Madhuri Chaudhri AIR 1964 Cal. 252
Davies v. Mann (1842) 10 M&W 546
Glasgow Corporation v. Muir (1943) AC 448
Admiralty Commissioners v. S.S Volute (1922) 1 AC 129
British Columbia Electric Rly. v. Loach (1916) AC 719
Copoc v. Wright [1991]4 AER 907
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwati AIR 1966 SC 1750
Radhey Shyam v. Guru Prasad AIR 1978 All 86
Hollywwod Silvester Fox Farm Ltd. v. Emett (1936) 2 KB 468
Christie v. Davey (1893) 1Ch 316

Page 8 of 11

[COURSE OUTLINE:LAW OF TORT] NLUO 2014-2015

Ball v. Ray (1873) LR 8 Ch 467
Bridlington Relay v. Yorkshire Electric Board (1965) 1 All ER 264
Ratlam Municipality v. Vardhichand (1980) 4SCC 162

Module Seven: - Torts Against Human Being

Assault, battery, emotional distress, malicious prosecution and abuse of legal
proceedings, conspiracy, false imprisonment. Defamation, freedom of speech
and expression and liability for defamation in the civil and criminal law, different
branches of defamation: libel, slander and hybrid types of the defamation;
defamation in blogs & cyberage; privilege, fair comment and criticism, malice
and right of privacy.
Reference Cases
Leta Fay Ford V. Revlon, Inc. Supreme Court of Arizona (153 Ariz. 38, 734
P.2d 580) 1987
Newstead v London Express (1940) 1 KB 377
Hayward v. Thompson (1981)3All E R 450
Lewis v. Daily Telegraph Ltd (1963)2 AER 151
Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd.(1971) 2 AER
M.C. Verhese v. T.J. Poonam, AIR 1970 SC1876
T.S. Bhatt v. A. K. Bhatt AIR 1978 Ker 111
Berry v. B.T.C. (1962) 1 QB 306
Abarath v. North Eastern Railway (1886) 11 App Cas 247
Girija Prasad Sharma v. Uma Shankar Pathak AIR 1973 MP 79
Quinn v. Leathem,( 1901)AC 495
Mogul Steamship Co. v McGregor, Gow& Co.(1892) AC 25
Clements v. Flight (1846) 16 M&W 42
Winsmore v. Greenbank (1745) Willes 577

Module Eight: - Torts Against Property

Trespass to land, trespass to goods, conversion, passing off, injury to trademark,
patent & copyrights. Interference with contract and business.
Reference Cases

Wood v. Leadbitter (1845) 12 M& W 838

Hurst v. Picture Theatres Ltd. (1915)1 K.B. 1
Cresswell v. Sirl (1948) 1 K.B. 241
Moorgate Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. Finch (1962) 1 Q.B. 701
Allan v. Flood (1898) A.C. 1
Lumley v. Gye (1853)2 E & B. 216

Module Nine: - Emerging Areas in Law of Tort viz. Cyber

Tort, Constitutional Tort and Family Tort
Page 9 of 11

[COURSE OUTLINE:LAW OF TORT] NLUO 2014-2015

Emerging trends in the law of tort for example,

constitutional torts, wrongs

relating to domestic rights, viz marital rights, parental rights, domestic violence,
seduction of female child etc.
Rights in cyberspace, cybertrespass, cyberstalking, spamming, invasion of
privacy in cyberspace, cyberlibel, cybersquating. Product liability in a hi-tech
environment. Issue of jurisdiction in Cybertort.
Communication of Decency Act 1996, (USA)
Electronic Communication and Privacy Act, 1986 (USA)
USAPA 2001(United States Patriot Act)
Information Technology Act 2000(India)
Reference Cases
Astroworks, Inc. v. Astroexhibit, Inc., 257 F.Supp.2d 609 (SDNY 2003).
Bill Mc Laren, Jr. V. Microsoft Corporation, Courtof Appeals of Texas, Dallas
(1999) WL 339015
CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., 962 F.Supp 1015 (SD Ohio
1997).
Doe v. AOL, Inc., 783 So. 2d 1010 (Fl 2001).
EBAY, Inc., Plaintiff, V. BIDDERS EDGE, Inc., Defendant. United States
District Court for the Northern District of California . 100 F.Supp. 2d
1058(2000).
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Walston & Co., Inc., 234 N.E.2d 230
(1967) adhered to on rearg 238
Hotmail Corp. v. Van$ Money Pie Inc., WL 388389 (1998).
Kremen v. Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir 2003).
School of Visual Arts v. Kuprewicz, 771 N.Y.S.2d 804 (2003).
Shmueli v. Corcoran Group, 802 N.Y. S.2d 871 (2006).
Stratton Oakmont Inc. v. Prodigy, (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 1995).
United States v. Texas, 507 U.S. 529 (1993).
Wilson v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 718 N.E.2d 172 (Ill.1999).
Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 958 F. Supp. 1124, (E.D. Va. 1997).

Module Ten: - Motor Vehicles Law

Page 10 of 11

[COURSE OUTLINE:LAW OF TORT] NLUO 2014-2015

Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault
liability, insurance and necessity for insurance against third party risks
under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Reference Cases

Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v Raman Bhai Prabhabhai

(1987) 3 SCC 234
Shivaju Dayanu Patil v. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More AIR 1991 SC
1769

SUGGESTED READINGS
Wienfield and Zolowicz, Tort, 17th Edi., Sweet & Maxwell 2006
Salmond and Heuston on the Law of Torts
Salmond, J W, Salmonds Law of Torts (8th edition, Sweet & Maxwell,
London, 1934)
Fleming, J G, The Law of Torts (9th edition, LBC Information
Services, Sydney, 1998)
Clark nad Lindsell on Torts
Ratan Lal and Dhiraj Lal on Law of Torts
David Baumer, JC Poindexter, Cyberlaw and E-Commerce, McGrawHill Irwin Newyork USA 2002.
Tabrez Ahmad Cyberlaw, E-Commerce & M-Commerce. APH
Pub.Corp. NewDelhi 2003.
Lee B. Burgunder, Legal Aspects of Managing Technology 2 nd Edition
West 2001.
V K Krishna Eradi, Consumer Protection Jurisprudence, Lexis Nexis
New Delhi 2005.
Mukherjee, Motor Vehicles Act 1988 with rules and exhaustive
commentary on Motor accident compensation 2nd Edi. Premier Pub.
Allahabad 2006.
DK Ganguly Commentary on The Motor Vehicles Act 1988 with rules
along with allied laws, Kamal Pub. New Delhi 2007

Wish you all the best!

*******************************

Page 11 of 11