3.

GIVE A FULL AND DETAILED ANALYSIS OF

ANY THREE CLASSIFICATION OF THE
INTEREST PROTECTED BY TORT LAW.

1.Protection Of Property
In modern civil-law systems, protection is given by provisions found in both the property and
tort sections of the codes. Common-law systems give property owners equivalent protection, but
through the law of torts. Thus, direct physical intrusion on the property of another falls within the
province of the old tort of trespass. This succeeds without any proof of special damage and is
defeated only by rather narrowly defined pleas such as that of imminent necessity (to protect the
intruder or his property) or inevitable accident.
Other interests in land, however, receive a more qualified protection and must yield to the test of
reasonableness. A miscellany of wrongs, ranging from encroachment of branches or roots to
falling tiles or slates from nearby roofs, are covered by the amorphous tort of private nuisance,
which also covers such interferences as excessive vibrations, noise, smells, and other, more
modern, instances of pollution. The emphasis is not on the unreasonableness of the defendant’s
conduct, as in the tort of negligence, but on the unreasonableness of the interference with the
plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of his land. The unifying element is the type of harm, and the law’s
overall aim is to protect an individual’s right to enjoy the amenities of his land within the general
framework of give-and-take necessary in an increasingly crowded world.
Balancing competing interests is therefore the key feature, and numerous judgments make it a
difficult area of law. Its particular interest lies in the fact that, along with other branches of the
law (e.g., administrative law and criminal law), it can help perform zoning functions in the use of
land; however, attempts to utilize it in protecting the environment have not, on the whole, been
very successful. In short this is an old tort that has been deployed to cope with modern
developments, especially by North American systems.
The gravity of any interference with the plaintiff’s land is a major consideration. Older English
decisions distinguish between sensible material damage to the land and mere interference with its
use and enjoyment. The distinction—not found in any rigid form in civil-law systems—is,
however, often unworkable; and to the extent that it reflects a past valuing of tangible forms of
property over intangible ones, it may be inadequate. The duration of the interference may also be
crucial, temporary annoyances being on the whole more tolerable. The nature of the locality has
also been taken into account. This has a mixed effect, however. It has certainly helped preserve
rural and residential areas against intruding noxious trades; but it has also permitted increased
industrial pollution.
The more important the purpose of the activity complained about, the greater the tendency to
grant effective authorization of the nuisance by legislative fiat. But the effect of the nuisance—
typically an oil refinery or airport—on its victims can be catastrophic, often amounting to
indirect expropriation of their land. Hence, there exist special compensation acts
or constitutional clauses providing for compensation.
Chattels
The law affords wide protection to proprietary interests over chattels. Again, this can involve
using a proprietary remedy to reclaim goods removed from their rightful owner or to
claim damages for chattels affected by a tort-feasor’s intentional or negligent conduct.
Intentional interference with goods is unusual and therefore receives specialized treatment by
some systems. Most cases arise in connection with damaged movables, and here the more
modern tort of negligence often applies, the problem usually being the extent of compensation.
For example, if an automobile is damaged in a collision, its owner will be able to claim from the
wrongdoer the cost of repairs. But can such cost be claimed if it exceeds that of purchasing a
similar vehicle? And what of extra transportation costs incurred during the period of repair or the
expense of hiring an equivalent substitute? Even more controversial are recent claims for such
injuries as a lost or ruined holiday following damage to the vehicle. Although the latter claim
tends to be regarded as extravagant (and beyond the competence of tort law at least), the others
tend to be satisfied, subject to the rules of remoteness and the pervading test of reasonableness
(e.g., the victim cannot hire a luxury automobile to replace a damaged economy car). In other
instances, however, theoretical doubts may arise as to whether there is interference with property
or mere economic loss. For example, if a canal leading to a millpond collapses, trapping but not
damaging a vessel, has the owner of the vessel suffered property damage or mere economic loss?
Or if a fire forces the police to cordon off an area, depriving its residents of access to their
automobiles, have they suffered a property interference? Sometimes courts focus on the duration
of the interference and treat prolonged deprivation as equivalent to property damage. In other
cases, however, they treat these instances as cases of pure economic loss and reject any claim for
compensation.

2.Protection Of Honour, Reputation, And

Privacy
The protection of individuals’ honour, reputation, and privacy in Western systems is, on
the whole, adequate, though it is achieved in varied ways. One factor accounting for the
hesitation regarding when to provide protection is linked to the difficulty of balancing
privacy rights against free speech. Another is the historical preference of civil-law
systems for bringing many instances of defamation under criminal law. Finally, the
constitutional environment has had a great impact on this part of tort law. In the United
States the tendency since the mid-1960s has been to sacrifice human reputation and
privacy to the First Amendment, with its unambiguous preference for free speech. Thus,
American law does not allow an action (at any rate where media defendants are
involved) unless the plaintiff-victim can prove that the allegation was made with “actual
malice”—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it
was false or not. In the United States the plaintiff must also prove that the defendant’s
statement is false, with the result that many of the traditional common-law defenses are
bypassed. The idea behind this is that any contrary decision restricts the constitutional
right to free speech.
English law, by contrast, is much more jealous of reputation, though numerous
complicated defenses also make sure that free speech is not totally throttled. But in the
main the English law of defamation is complex and archaic. The old distinction
between libel and slander (defamatory matter in permanent and in transient form,
respectively) is preserved; the plaintiff is not entitled to legal aid (with the practical
consequence that only wealthy people can afford to sue); the action can succeed
without any proof of special damage (giving an unwarranted advantage to corporations,
since they thus acquire the benefit of rules designed for human beings); the cause of
action does not survive the death of either party; and, finally, juries are often used and
are entitled (in one of the rare instances of English law) to award punitive damages. No
summary can do justice to this peculiar but important tort, but, according to English legal
scholar Tony Weir’s A Casebook on Tort (1974), it may well be that its defects arise

Oprah Winfrey emerging from a federal district courthouse in Amarillo, Texas, in 1998 after a jury found in
her favour in a lawsuit alleging that she had libeled beef.LM Otero/AP

because it uses a single remedy, the action for damages, in order to perform three distinct
purposes: (a) to permit people to clear their reputation from unfounded allegations; (b) to
allow people to claim compensation for harm they suffer because others have abused
freedom of speech; and (c) to repress gratuitous vituperation, scurrilous disparagement and
malignant calumny.

Weir goes on to say that

only for (b) are damages the appropriate remedy. For (a) we need a procedure for retraction
or correction, and for (c) we need the public stocks.

Several more-recent developments may be influencing changes in English law.

American law thus seems to be encouraging a trend to protect speech through the
enlargement of certain traditional defenses, while human rights legislation, including the
Human Rights Act of 1998, is forcing English courts to take into account the case law of
the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. The right to a fair trial, for
instance, has been used to challenge the unrestricted use of the notion of duty of care
(see above Gray areas) and the resulting extensive “immunities” that it has conferred on
many statutory bodies for their undoubtedly negligent behaviour. Such developments
reflect changes in thinking over time as well as a change in the sources of
law. Conservative English lawyers, however, have accepted them only hesitantly or
have opposed them outright; and the law regarding the liability of local authorities
remains complex and, many would say, unsatisfactory. Such developments also
demonstrate the growing impact that public law and human rights law are having on a
subject that once formed part of pure private (and in England, judge-made) law.
Protecting the various aspects of the human personality and privacy is also a growing
concern of Western legal systems, though again they set about achieving this aim in
different ways. The need for such a protection was first stressed by German and U.S.
academics toward the end of the 19th century, but their arguments were rejected on
both sides of the Atlantic because of fears that it would lead to increased litigation
and inhibit free speech. By the beginning of the 20th century, however, the first attempts
at protection were made in Germany and the United States. Many of these dealt with
the unauthorized use of a person’s likeness. Others concerned unauthorized use of
names or publication of private correspondence. With litigation, a patchy but growing
protection began to emerge. In 1948–49 the drafters of the West German Grundgesetz
(“Basic Law”) reacted against the utter disregard for human dignity prevalent during
the Third Reich and for the first time inserted into German law general provisions
protecting human personality. Protection of this sort was transferred to the field of civil
law in the early and middle 1950s, when a series of important decisions gradually
shaped a general right of personality for the violation of which damages could be
awarded under the general law of delict. The process was complicated and protracted,
and what exists now is a casuistic, judge-made right. But in general the protection
afforded to human privacy is extensive, with German judges successfully balancing the
competing interests with great courage and effectiveness.
American law meanwhile was classifying and refining the many headings of actionable
privacy created by statute or wide-ranging judicial pronouncements: appropriation of
likeness, unreasonable intrusion, false light cases (i.e., those in which the plaintiff
claims to have been placed in a false light by the defendant), and public disclosure of
private facts on a matter that would be highly offensive and objectionable to a
reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities. The overall protection thus achieved was
extensive and not dissimilar to that of German law, though once again the concern to
protect First Amendment rights has seriously stunted certain headings of actionable
privacy.
The protection of privacy acquired a new urgency during the later part of the 20th
century as increased technological ability to collect, collate, and disseminate information
made it possible to interfere with human personality, solitude, and privacy to an
unprecedented extent. In some countries, such as France, new articles were introduced
in the civil code to deal with the matter, while others passed special legislation dealing
with a modern and dangerous form of invasion connected with data banks and the
linking up of information contained within them. To this tendency even English law has
not been immune, though the protection afforded remains patchy and casuistic. The
creation of a general right of privacy was rejected in the early 1970s and again in the
early 1990s, partly on the grounds that it was difficult to define but mainly because of
sustained opposition from the British press. Thus, although English law does not
recognize a general right of privacy similar to that embodied in the French Civil Code or
created by the German courts, it often achieves comparable results through the
ingenious use of existing torts (defamation, trespass, nuisance, passing off) or the law
of contract, criminal law, or restitution. Once again, however, this picture may be about
to change as a result of the English Human Rights Act 1998.
4.IDENTIFY THE SIMILARITIES ANS DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN TORT AND CONTRACT, ANS TORT LAW AND
CRIMINAL LAW.
Distinction/ difference between tort and contract

 1.Similarities: a)Both tort and breach of contract

give rise to civil suits. This means that they are
actions by individuals or companies, in civil courts,
seeking either damages or an injunction. It also
means they have similar procedural rules, such as
the standard of proof being on the balance of
probabilities in both areas. b)Both tort and contract
are part of the “book” of obligations: they both
relate to duties and rights between individuals. This
is a structural definition that is based on civil
law/Roman law. c)Tort and contract are thought of
two of the foundational subjects throughout the
common law: students must learn them in order to
qualify as practitioners. They are also often learnt
together.
 2.Differences: a)The law of contract exists, at least
in its most immediate reach, for the purpose of
vindicating a single interest, that of having promises
of others performed. By comparison the interests
vindicated by the law of torts are much more
numerous. They may be interests in personal
security, reputation or dignity, as in actions for
assault, personal injuries and defamation. They may
be interests in property, as in actions for trespass
and conversion; or interests in unimpaired relations
with others, as in causing injury or death to
relatives. Hence the field covered by the law of torts
is much broader, and certainly more diverse, than
that of contract. b)In the case of contract law, the
vindication of the interest in having the contract
performed is effected either by (i) specifically
compelling the promisor to perform or (ii) by
awarding the promisee damages to put him in as a
good a position as if the promise had been kept.
Thus while contract law as a rule assures the
promisee the benefit of the bargain, tort law has the
different function of primarily compensating
injuries or losses. This means that the amount of
damages is usually liquidated or pre-determined in
contract, whereas tort damages are usually
unliquidated. c)Another distinction is that tort duties
are said to be fixed by law in contrast to contractual
obligations which can arise only from voluntary
agreement. Certainly in classical contract theory, the
function of contract is to promote voluntary
allocation of risks (typically though not exclusively,
 commercial risks) in a self-regulating society, while
tort law allocates risks collectively in accordance
with community values by the fiat of court or
legislature. But this distinction, though still
fundamentally sound, has become somewhat
blurred as the area of self-regulation by contract is
being progressively narrowed by regulatory
legislation and judicial policing for fairness inspired
by collectivist and egalitarian ideals. Besides,
contractual terms (where not expressly spelt out) are
“implied” (imposed) by law and usually identical
with tort duties arising from one party’s
“undertaking” to act for another, as in the case of
professional and other services.

Difference / Distinction between Tort and Crime

No. Tort Crime

1) Tort is infringement of a private right or Crime is a breach of invasion of public rights and
civil right of an individual i.e. it is a duties or invasion of public rights and duties
private wrong or harm affecting the affecting the society at large e.g. it is a social
interest of private individual. harm
2) In Torts, intention is immaterial to hold
a person responsible for civil
wrong mens rea e.g. Guilty mind is not
required.
3) The purpose of law of torts is
compensate the victim i.e. The
wrongdoer has to compensate the
injured party.
4) The parties in a civil suit for tort are
individuals i.e. Individual v/s
Individual.
5) The yardstick for measuring liability in
torts is the magnitude of harm caused.
The greater the harm, greater is a the
amount of compensation awarded/ to
be paid.
In crime, intention is important. Without mens
rea there is hardly any crime to hold a person
responsible for a crime usually mens rea i.e. guilty
mind or mental element is necessary.
In crime the purpose is to punish the offender.
The offender is punished by the state in the
interest of the society and with the aim to deter
the offender from committing it again.
In case of crime the state is always a party, as the
state takes an action against the wrongdoer as
crime is a public wrong. Therefore, it is State v/s
Individual.
In crime, while deciding the punishment to be
given to the offender three factors are taken into
accounts. A) The character of offender, his past
record , whether he has committed the offense
for the first time or is he a repeater
B) Motive of Wrongdoer.
C) Magnitude of harm caused. If Rs.1000/- is
stolen the harm is different than when
Rs.100000/- are stolen.
 6) In torts action is brought by an injured In crime, the proceedings are conducted in the
party and the tort feasor is sued in a name of the state and the guilty person is
civil court. punished by the state. The guilty person i.e.
criminal is prosecuted in a criminal court.

SIMILARITIES

Both Tort and Crime;

 Must be consistent with the state and federal constitutions

 are applied and interpreted by courts
 use juries for questions of fact
 have similar appeal routes for convicted defendants
 have procedural and substantive dimensions
 may apply to the very same act (both kinds of legal action may
proceed simultaneously)
 may use the same legal concepts (battery is both a crime and tort;
punitive damages resemble criminal fines; contempt of court can be
criminal or civil).