LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING CONSUMER

PROTECTION LAW

LLB Ist Yr Ist Sem

Unit -1 Evolution, definition, nature and

scope of torts.Origin of the law of torts in england.—

During this period. Distinction between crime and torts was not recognised. the famous action or write of trespass was introduction in thirteenth century.

This write was at its inspection both civil and criminal and ended in damage as well as punishment. the early common law concerned mainly with the remedies and not with the right. Before the passing of the judicature act, a proceeding in the common law courts was called

an action. Success of action depend upon the availability of writ.

• The forms of action them available fell into two categories.

• The action of trespass • The action of trespass on the case.• A write of trespass provided an effective remedy

in the king court to person who were aggrieved by violent injuries to their person and property.but making this allegation the aggrieved person was enabled to seek the aid of the king court.

• In the absence of the aggrieved personhad to go local and manoraial courts for the redressal of his grievances.

• An action of trespas would not lie if violence or force was not used .but in the courseof wrongs in which force or violence was not used such as causing injury to chattel by a person who was entrusted with the possession of chattel by the owner .one of the main point of distinction between an action for treaspass and action of trespass on the case was that while the former lay for direct injury.the latter lay for indirect or consequential injury.

• In the course of time, common law court allowed action malicious prosecution, conversion of good etc.because remedies in respect of time injuries had become necessary in view of the cnane that were taking place in the society.reference may bemade here to the famous case of ashby v. white. Where the exrecising his staturing right of voting. The candidate for whom the plaintiff wanted to cast his vote had right of voting.this case renderd a signal service for the developmemt of law of torts bt establishing the principle, ubi ibi remedian ‘’ where there is right there is a remedy .as remarked by lord dunedin in nocton v. ashburton’’

• ‘’ There is no harder lesson for the stranger jurist to learn that the common law began with the remedy and ended with the right.after the memorable judgment of sir john hold, C.J.it has been firmly establisnment that ‘’ novelty is no bar toan action’’ for there is not a single case in the report in which an action has been refused on the sole ground that it was new.the law of torts is a development subject it has grown for centuries and is still growing.for exm-’’lability for false statement was unthought of until much later and libility for careless false statement was not generaly accepted until 1963. the recovery of damades for desappiontment over a runed holding today reppresent a very advanced stage of development.

Law of torts in india-• The law of torts in india is generally based law of

torts.as regards the suite for damage for torts courts generally followed the english common law so far as it was consonant with equity,justic and good conscience.for exm- rule requring proof of social damage for action for slander and the doctrine of common employment prevailling in england were not follwed.

• Even after indendence india courts have generally follwed law of torts which prevails in england.but while applying a rule they always keep in mind that the rule must a be reasonable and suitable

-

• To indian condition. A resent exmple of such rules is the rule or principle if strict libility in respect of hazardous activity.

• In M.C V. Union of india.which is more popularly known as Oleum Gas Leak case P.N Bhagwati C.J delivering the judgment pon behalf of the bench of supreme court observed.’’ we can not allow our judicial thinking to be conscripted by reference to the law as it prevaails in england or for the matter of that in any foreign country. We no longer need the crutches of foreign legal order.we are certainly prepared to receive light from whatever sourses it comes but we have to

• Build up our own jurisprudence and we can not countenance an argment that merely because the new law does not recognize the rule of strictly and absoulte liability in cases of hazardous or dangerous liability or the rule as laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher as is development in englands recognises certain limitation and responsibleties we in india can not hold our hands back and I venture to evolve a new priciple of liability which english courts have not done.

• Indian courts have done very lettle for the development of law of torts in india.even after 55 year of independence, the position of law of torts in india is just delorable.

• The bhopal gas leak disaster of dec 2-3 1984.brought into limelight the lethargy,incompetence and apathy of indian couts in respect of the development of law of torts in india.

• On 8th april 1985 union of india filed a case against union carbide corporation in united states district court southern district of new york requesting award of damage.

• Underdevelopment of torts law is an out growth both of institution preference for criminal remedies and of specific relief.

• And steep filling fees that’s have been traditional jurisprudence reinforce and reinforced by scarcity of torts doctrine both out growth of india political and social history.

• As survey oftorts law in the ten year period from 1975 through 1984 reveled only 56 torts cases reported by the supreme court and high court.of those only 22 involved negligence torts.

• The law of torts in india is based on judical decision after independence england decision are binding upon indian court.

• While most other branches of law have been codified.

• The law of torts has been ingnored and as yet there is no code of this branch of law in india.

• Some parts of the such as specific relife act 1963 fatal accident act 1855.employyers liability act 1938.moter vehcles act 1939 and motor vechicles act 1988.

Nature and defination-• The originof the tort m may be traced to the latin

word ‘’tortum’’which means ‘twisting out’ in law it means a wrong or injury having certain characeritics themost important of which is that is that it is redressible in an action for unliquidated damages at the instance of the person who has been injured or wronged.

• Fraser has defined it as’ an infringment of a right in rem of private indivdual giving a right of compensation at the suite of the injured party.

.• Winfield’ defination- ‘’ tortious liability arises from the breach of a duty primarliy fixed by law.this duty is towards person generlly and its breach is redressible by an action for unliquidated damages.winfield definition contains following the main point.

• 1- Brech of duty.• 2-primarily fixed by the law.• 3-duty towards people generally.• 4- breach of duty is redressible by an action

for liquiadated damage.

• Salmond defination- salmond defines torts’’ as a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action for unliquidated damage and which is not exclusevely the breach of cntract,or breach of trust other merely equitable abligation

• General condition of libility in torts or essential of tort—

• wrongful act.• The wrongful must result in legal damage to

another person.• Legal remedy.

Torts and crime-• A crime is generally considerd an offience against

the community.its is a breach and violation of public right and duties which affect the whole community.thus crime be said to be public wrong . On the other hand civil wrong is an infringement of the private r civil right belonging to individual,considerd as individual.

• A crime is a civil wrong for which the common remedy is punishment a torts wrong and the remedy for which is an action for unliquidated damage. Since crime is deemd to be an offence against the whole community.

• The person gulity of commiting the crime is the is punished not punished not only for giving him a lessoin but also to serve as an eye- opener to other member of the community to safe gurad the interest of the whole commutiny.

• Torts being a private wrong the party which suffers injury is requried to file the suit against the defendant and at any stage of the proceeding may withdraw the suit by entering into any agreement of compromise with defendant or even withdrow it.

Torts and breach of contractThe main points of distinction between tort and breach of contract are the follwing.As noted earlier ,is an agreement enforceable by law,contractural liability therefore arises out of agreement between the parties.torties libblity on the other hand aries out of the breach of duty which is not a breach of contract occurs where that which is complained of is abreach of duty arising out of the obligation undertaken by the cotract.In a breach of contract ,motive of the party breaking the contract is immaterial.

• In a breach of contract nature of damages is always compensatory .in tort also generally the nature of damages is compensatory but in case of injury to person or character exemplary damages is compensatory but in case of the case of injury to person or character,exemplary damage may also be awarded if the facts of the cases reveal malic or fraud.

Damnum sine injuria• This maxim means that no action will lie if

there is actual loss or damage but there has no infringment of legal right.as noted earlier tortious liability arises out of a breach of duty primarily fixed by law.thus breachof a legal duty or infringement of a legal right is the essential codition for arising of liability in torts.if t have a mill and my neighbour build another mill,where by the profit of my mill is diminished,.

• In case Glucestar Grammar school case.• Chassemor. v. richards.• Injuria sine damno. • The maxim injuria sine damno means that if a private

right is infringed, the plaintiff will have a cause of acton even through the plaintiff has not suffered,any actual loss or damage thus according to this maxim ,what is necessary is the infringment of a legal right and not the proof of actual loss or damage. Injuria means infringement of a right conferred by law , and damnum means actual damage or loss.

• An illustrative case on the maxim of injuria sine damno is Ashby v. white.

• In jadu nath mullick v. kali krishna tagore.

Joint and several tortfeasor• Defination— according to salmond ‘’ where the same

damage is caused to aperson by two or more wrongdoer those weongdoers those wrongdoers may be either joint or independent tortfeasors.

• This happens in commission of three classes of case- namely ,agency ,vicarious liability and common action.

• Brook v. Bool.• nature of liability- if a tort is commited jointly by a number

of person each is responsible severally as well as jointly with each and all the other for the whole ammount of the damage caused by them and the extent of the participation of each of them in the commission of the tort is immaterial.the position is differentin case of independent tortfeasor

Successive action• In india the law laid down in the said act 1935 is not

follwed .• In Nawal kishore v. Rameshwar.• Release.• Egger v. viscount chelmsford.• Lovejoy v. Murry.• Position in india-• In india in the absence if a statute parallel to the law

refrom act 1935.• Meery weather v. nixon.• In khushalrao v. bapurao Gunpatrao.

Volenti non fit injuria• One of the recognised general defences to

liability in tort is that the plaintiffcosented or assented to the doing of act which caused harm to him ,the defendant would not be liable. This is know as volenti non fit injuria or leave and licence.the question of application of the maxim may arise only if it is established that a tort has been committed by defendant.’’ to layman a person who has consented to the infliction of damage on himself should not be heard to complian thereafter.

• For exm- A and B are compition in a boxing match ,if is implied that they have consented to bear the risk usually involved what isnecessarily requrired the maxim of volenty non fit injuria will not apply.

• In imperial chemical industries ltd. V.shatwell.• Limitation of the maxim—• Consent must be voluntary and free.• Knowledge does not necessaily imply assent or

consent.• Consent must not Generally be to illegal acts.• The maxim does not apply to cases of negligence.• The maxim does not apply to resue cases.• Unfair contract terms act 1977.

• Consent must be voluntary and free.• Case- Osborne v. london& north western Rly co.• Knowledge does not necessarily imply assent or

consent.• Case- thomas v. quartermain.• ‘ x’ and ‘y’ were together invited for dinner at place.at

the time of dinner x got too much dinner. Y also knew this fact.after the dinner x offered a lift to y in his car with a view to leave y at his residence. Y accepted the offer on the way due to the negligence there was an accident in which y got injured the car was being driven by x hiself. The maxim volenti non fit injuria will not be liable because y knew that x was too much drunk.

• Consent to illegal acts—• Murphy v. culhane.• Application of the maxim in cases of negligence—• Dr.laxman balkrishna josi v. Dr trimbak bapu

godbole.• Doctor and patient—• The relation of doctor and patient is a good exm

of the proposition of law that the maxim volenti non fit injuria does not apply in case of negligence. If the patient consult a doctor or takes his treatment and as a result of this some damage is caused the doctor or takes his treatment and as a result of his some damage is

• Caused the docter will not be liable because it will be presumed that the patient consent to the risk of the consultation or the treatment as the case may be.but the position will be different where the docter is guilty of the breach of duty to take proper care or is otherwise negligent.in such a case the docter will be liable.

• Case- Laxman bal krishna joshi v. trimbak bapu godbole.

• Unfair contract terms act 1977.

ACT Of GOD• Act of god is also recognised as one of general

defences to liabilty in torts. Act of god means an act or escape caused directly by natural cause without human intervention and ‘’ so unexpected that no human foresight or skill could resonably be executed to anticipate it.

• Case- Nichols v. marsland.• Ryan v. youngs.• Jay laxmi salt woks [p] v. the state of Gujarat.

Inevitable Accident• Yet another exception toliabilty in tort is know as

envitable accident. By inevitable accident we mean accident which cannot be avoided, by any such precation as a reasonable man, doing such act then and there, could be expected to take.

• Exm- if a car driver has a heart attack and there is an accident or a driver after getting the car serviced meets with an accident not because of any negligence on his part because the break fail all of a sudden , the defence of inevitable accident will apply.

• Case- holmes v. mather.• Stanley v. powell.• Statutory authority—• Statutory authority is a well recognised defence

in case.where injury to plaintiff is in cosequence of an act authorised under a satute. The act would have constituted a tort had there been no satutory authority for its commission.

• Case- Metropitan Asylum v. district hill.• Great central railway v. hewlett.• Pride of derby and derbyshire angling association

ltd british cleanse ltd.

Vicarious liabilityMeaning and definition- A man is liable for his own wrongful acts. he is not liable for the wrongful acts of other. but under certain circumstance a man may be held liable for wrongful act of other. This is known as ‘vicarious liability. The term vicarious liability denote ‘’the liability which A may incur to c for damage caused to C by the negligence or other torts of B. it is not necessary that a duty owes in law by A to C shall have been broken. The common instances of such relationship are liability of master for torts of his servant. Liability of partners for torts of each other. And liability of principle for the torts of his agents.

• Exmp- where an employer is held liable for damage caused by the act of independent contractor for in that case the imployer isnot liable unless the independent contractor act is one which has the legal result that some duty is owed directly by the employer to the plaintiff has been broken.

• Reason for vicarious liability.• Vicarious liability is based upon the principle of

‘respodent superior.and quifacit per alium facit per se but niether of these two principle explains correctly the reason for vicarious liabilty.

• The maixm respodent superior tells us simply• Theresult and not the reson why employer

shuld be liable for the torts of his servent.the maixm qui facit per alium facit per se also correctly the reson for vicarious liability although it is often referred with approval by court.

• Principal and agent—• A person who authorises or procures a tort to

be commited by the principle expressed in the maixm qui facit per alium facit per se.

• If A suffer damage by the wrongful act of B and seek to say C is liable for that damage he must etablish that in doing the act B acted as the agents or servant of C if he say that he was C agent he must further show that C authorised the act.

• Lioyd v. Grace, smith & Co.• Barkwick v. English joint stock bank.• Ormord v. crosvilla moter service Ltd.• Partners—• The master for torts commited in the course of

emplyment is joint and serveral. Amaster is vicariously liable for the act of his servant acting in the course of employment.

• The servent act does not make the employer liable.in other words for the master liability to arise the following essential must be there—

• The person committing the torts must be servant.

• The torts committed by the servant must be in the course of his employment.

• The act must be a wrongful act authorised by master.

• Who is servant—scince one the essentails for master vicarious liability is that the torts must be committed by his servant.

• According to lord thankton.a contract of service and has the follwing four element.

• Master power to select his servant.• Payment of wages by master to servant.• Master right to control the methods of doing

the work.• Right of master to suspend or dismiss the

servant• Case- cassidy v. ministry of health.• Stevenson jordan and harrisan Ltd. V.

Macdonald & evans.

• Whose is servant or liablity of master when he lends his servant to another person—

• A difficulty problem arise when a master lends his servant his servant to another person for some transaction and the servant causes injury to a person say x can x recover damage from the first master or from the person whom the servant has been lent? Such a proble arose is

• Mersey dock and harbour board v. coggins and Griffith [Liverpool Ltd.

Liability for casual delegation• Where is master of car ,allow y to use his car for his

own purpose or for some purpose in which he is intersted,but retains his right of contol over y and y injures Z by negligence car doing, Z can recover damage from X.

• In ormord v. crossville moter service Ltd.• The course of employment- vicarious liabilty of master

for the tort commited by the servant is that the tort must have been committed in the courseof employment .but it is equally well settled that if the servant at the time of the accident, is not acting within the course of employment but doing something for himself the master is not liable.

• In Rickett,s case. In Engelhari .v. farrant & co.• In century insurance co v.Northern ireland Road

transport board.• In sitaram v. santanuprasad.• Course of employment—• Liability of master where motor driver gives lift to a

person in disregard of a satutory rule or probition.• In narayanlal v. rukmani bai• In young v. Edward Bose & co ltd.• Pushpabai v. ranjit G p co.• Liability of master where the driver leaves the

vehicles unattended on the highway•

• In Ganga Sugar corpn. Ltd &other v. sukhbir singh and another.

• Unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by the master.

• It has been noted above that for master liability to arise,the tort must have been committed by the servant in the course of employment.it may be noted here for master liability to arise,it is also necessary that the servant must be wrong act authorised bythe master or a wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by the master.

• In rickett case.

• Main incident of master laibility for the torts of his servant.

• Its will be desirable here to refer the main incident of master laiabilty for the torts of his sevant.

• Carelessness of servant.• Mistake of servant .• Wilful wrong of servant .• Theft by servant .• Damage to goods bailrd.• It is proposed to discuss below each of these main

incident in alittle greater detail• Carelessness of servant- case century insurance coLtd

v. northern ireland road transport board..

• Mistake of servant- case –in Bayley v. Manchester, sheffield and Lincolushire Rly.

• Wilful wrong of servant- case-Limpus v. london General omnibus co.

• Fraud of servant- case Lioyd v. Grace smith &co.• Theft by servant- case cheshire v. bailey.and C.W

martin & sons Ltd.• Damage to goods bailed.• Employer and independence contracter—• In Rylands v. fletcher.• Exception-

Absoult and strict liability• Strict laibility:the rule in rylands v. fletcher—• The defendant may be held responsible for the harm

caused to the plaintiff although the defendant neither intends the consequences nor is guilty of negigence.this is known as strict liability and principle giving rise to such from of a liability was first propounded in Ryland v. flecther.

• The term ‘absoulte liability a misnomer.—in this matter liability as absolute. But the liability in fact is strict and in no way absolute.the rule in rylands v. fletcher is so many exception that in fact very little of the rule is left.the mordern thoery that there will be no liabilty without any fault.in view of these reason the term ‘absoult liability is misnomer and the appropriate term is strictly liability .

‘

• Case-M.C Mehta v. Union of india.• Essential condition for application of Rylands

v. Fletcher.• Defendant must have brought on land and

kept there any thing likely to do mischief, if it escapes.

• The said thing must escape.• Non-natural use of land.• Case- in kamathan nagireddi and otherv.

Government of andhra pradesh and another.• Canadian pacific railway co v. pake.

Ground of defference or exception to the rule in rylands v. flectcher

• Plaintiff own defaults.• Act of god.• Natural user of the land.• Cosent of the plaintiff.• Act of stranger.• Statutory anthority.• Bringing and keeping things which are not

dangerous.• Common benefit.

• The modern position of the rule in Ryland v. fletcher.

• Position in india- the rule of strict and absolute liability: the rule in M.C Mehta v. union of india and Bhopal gas leak disaster case.

• The rule of strict and absolute liability: the rule in M.C mehta union of india

• Bhopal gas leak disaster and the Suprme court cases relating it.

Battery• Batery is the internation use of force to another

person with out legal justification.• According the modified defination. Batteryis the

international and direct application of force to another person.

• According to salmond ‘’ international to wrong any material object into contract withanother person is sufficient application of force to consitute a battery for exm to throw water upon him,or to pull a chair under him where he falls to the ground or to apply a tone – rise to his scap.’’it has following essential element:-

• Use to force.• Use of force should be international.• It should be without any lawful justification.• Exm-p enterd a restaurant and ordered for coffee

which was served to him. p refused to pay the the bill and assaulted the servant.in this case obviously the torts of battery was committed by p because he used force against the servant, the use of force was international and that it was without any lawful justification thus all the elements of battery discussed above are present p would therefore be liable to pay damages.

Assault• Assualt is an act of the defendant which to the

plaintiff reasonable of the infliction of battery on him by the defendant thus the conduct for bidden by this tort is act which threatens violence ,namely ,one that produces in the plaintiff a reasonable expectation of immediate unlaw ful force. The essential element of assault are the following.

• Some preparation or gesture constituting a threat of force.

• A reasonable apprehension of the use of force.• Ability or capability of the defendant to carry out

the treat.• In case- read v. coker.• Ball v. axten.• False imprisonment—• Flase imprisonment has been define as ‘the

inflction of bodily retraint which is not expressly or impiledly anthorised by the law.

• The word false in tort means unlawful without lawful excuse or justificaton.if a person freely and expressely consents to bring restrained there is of course no liability.the word imprisonment mean the complete restriction of the plaintiff freedom

• Of movement in ordinary sense.• For exm- amount in itself to false

imprisonment and so does any act where by a man isunlawfully prevented for leaving the place in which he is and in all these places the party so restrained is said to be a prisoner so long as he health not his liberty treely to go at all times to all places whether he will or maninprize.

• Essential elements of false imprisonment—• Complete restraint of liberty.

• Not expressly or impliedly authorised by law.• Knowledge of the plaintiff.• Defences and remedies—• Cosent.• Self defence.• Contributory negligence.• Prevention or ejectionof trespasser.• Prevention of breach of peace.• Parental or quasi-parental authority.• Invitable accident .• Statutory authority.

Malicious prosecution

• The term Malicious prosecution is probably not very appropriate because the word prosecution has a wider meaning than in criminal law and ,conversely not all proceeding which are technically prosecution are capable of founding an action for malicious prosecution malicious bankruptcy and liquidation proceeding: malicious arrest: and malicious execution against property: malicious civil proceeding and abouse of the process of the court.

• Case-Gregory v. portsmouth city council.• Essential ingredient of malicious prosecution.• The proceeding must have been instituted

orcontinued by the defendant.• He must have been acted without resonable and

probable cause.• He must have acted maliciously.• The proceeding must have been terminated in

favour of the plaintiff now suing.• The legal process was not only without

foundation but is used for an improper and collateral purpose.such order were not used for a purpose for which the court intended to pass the order or the order passed by the court in a case

• Has been used with motive to cause damage to the reputation of person or property of the affected party in action for malicious prosecution the plaintiff has to prove the following.

• That he was prosecuted by the defendant or criminal charge.

• That the proceeding complained of termination in his favour.

• That the defendant instituted or carried on such prosecution maliciously or in other words the prosecution was instituted and carried on with a malicious intention.

• That there was absence of resonable and probable cause for such prosecution

• That the plaintiff has suffered damage.

Negligence• Two meaning of negligence in two torts law.• An independent torts.• A mode of committing certain torts- trespass and

nuisance.• Thus negligence may meana mental element in

the tortious liablity or may maen an independent tort.

• The above two meaning to the word ‘negligence’ have given rise to two competing thories-

• The subjected thoery based upon mental element in the tortious liability.

• The object theory based upon the view that negligence is an independently tort.

• Negligence has been defined as ‘the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage, undersired by defendant to the plaintiff.

• Case- Lochdelly iron and coal co. v. mullan.• Machindranath kernath kasar v. D.S Mylarappa.• Essential of negligence—• That the defendant owed a duty of care.Case-Dr. C. B Sing v. the cantonent board agra.Donoghue v. stevenson.

• Duty of care must be owed to the plaintiff.• Case-Bourhill v. young.• Waters v.commissioner of police of the

metropolis.• Breach of duty to take care.• Case-co operative development &cane marketing

Ltd. And another v. bank of bihar and another.• Xavier v. state of tamil nadu.• Consequent damage to plaintiff.• Case-in state of madras v. abdul halim &other.• Bhita co-operative development cane marketing

union Ltd v. bank of bihar.

Res ipsa loquitur.• The latin phrase ‘res ipsa loquitur mean the thing

itself speak.in case pushpa parshotam udeshi v. M/Sranjit ginning and pressing co pvt.Ltd.

• Shyam sunder v. the state of rajasthan.• Condition for application of the maxim res ipsa

loquitur.• Management or control.• Case- state of punjab v. M/S mordern cultivators.• Syed akbar v. state of karnataka.

• Accident is such as in the ordinary of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care.

• Case- in krishna bus service Ltd v. smt mangli and other.

• In oriental fire and general insurance co Ltd v. smt . Narayanibai and other.

• Absence of explanation.• Case- in state of punjab v. m/s mordern

cultivators.• Kerala case namely kanu rowther v. kerala

state road transport corporation.

• Contributory negligence—• Case- in butterfield v. forrester.• In jolley v. sutton london borough council.• Cotributory negligence of children—• For exm in yachuk v. oliver blais co ltd.• Contributory negligence of the plaintiff

servant or agent: the doctrine of identification.

• Case-in oliver v. brimingham etc. omnibus co ltd.

Defamation• Defamation has been defaned as the

publication of satement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right –thinking member society.

• The torts of defamation a defamatory statement should not only be published but should tends to lower the reputation of the poerson in eye of right –thinking member of the society.

• Case-Youssoupoff v. metro – goldwyn- mayer pictures ltd.

• Kinds of defamation: Libel and slander• A libel consists of a defamatory statement or

representation in permanent form.if a defamatory meaning is society is conveyed by spoken words or gestures its slander.

• Exm- libel as distingushed from slander are a picture ,state ,waxwork effigy or any writing ,print mark or sign exposed to view.

• On the other hand defamation in the manual language of the deaf and dumb ,and mimicry and gesticulation generally an empty purse to indicate that the plaintiff has robbed the defendant would probably be slander,because the movement are more transient.

Distinction between libel and slander

• Libel is both a tort as well as crime where slander is a civil wrong.

• Libel is in all cases actionable per se.it is nacessary to prove special damage, other hand slander is save in excepitakl cases.actionable only in prof of special damage.

• Special damage—• Generally damage are of two kinds.• Generally and• Special.• Apart from general damage for injury to

reputation,special damage in the strict sence of the term may awarded,if expressly claimed in respect of

• Any materail or temporal injury proved to have been suffered as the natural result of defamation publiction complained .

• Indian law—• Case-parvaati v. mannar.• M c carry v. assocaited newspapersd.• In pijush kanti datta v. magalia gudia.• Essentials of defamation—• The words must be defamatory.• Case-in lewis v. daily telegraph ltd.• M.L sighal v. dr.pradeep mathur.

defences• Justification—• Case- Dr. yashwant trivedi v. indian express

newspapers pvt and other.• Abdul wahab galadari v. indian express

newspapers ltd and others.• Fair comment—• The defence of fair comment will succeed only

when ful fils the follwing.• The matter commented on must of public

interest.

• The words must to the plaintiff—• Case- Hulton &co. v. jones.• Newstead v. london express newspaper ltd.• The words must be published—• Case- huth v. huth.• Salenodandasi v. gajjal malla.• Between husband and wife –• Communication of defamatory matter by the

wife to husband and vice versa is no publication . But communication of defamatory matter by third person a wife about her husband and vice versa. Will be publication.

• Its must be an expression of opinion and an assertion of fact.

• The comment must be fair.• The comment must not be malicious.• privilege—• Case- in govind shantaram walavalkar v.

pandharinath shivram rege.• In mohan v. rahn.• Parliamatery privlege.• Official privilege.

Nuisance• It has defined as any thing which is injury to

health or offending to the senses and which causes injury or damage or annoyance or discomfort to other.

• In order that nuisance isactional torts it is essentail that there should exist.

• Wrongful act.• Damage or loss or inconvenience or

annoyance caused to another.

• Case-Bhanwar lal v. dhanraj.• Ushaben navinchndra trivedi v. chitra mandir.• Kind of nuisance—• Public nuisance.• Case- Ramdas and sons v. bhuwaneshwar

prasad sing.• Anil krishna pal v. state of west bengal and

other.• Private nuisance—• Essentials of private nuisance—

• Unreasonable oe unlawful interference with a person use or injoyment of land or some right or in connection with and.

• Damage.• Occupier liability.• Case- holbeck hall hotel ltd v. scar borough

borough council.• The standerd of liablity in nuisance—• Case-the wagon mount.• Nuisance on highway—• Case-jacobs v. london county council.

Defences

• Prescription.• Grant.• Statutory authority. Inevitable.• Ignorance of state of affairs.• Contrributory negligence.• Act of terspassers.