The legal maxims "damnum sine injuria" and "injuria sine damnum" are key

principles in tort law, addressing the distinction between damage and injury in
legal claims. Let's break down each maxim and examine leading judicial decisions
that illustrate these concepts.

1. Damnum Sine Injuria

Meaning: "Damnum sine injuria" means "damage without legal injury." It refers to
situations where a person experiences damage or loss, but there is no breach of a
legal right. Even though the individual suffers harm, they cannot claim
compensation because their legal rights have not been violated.

Key Characteristics:

• Actual damage or loss occurs.

• No legal right of the plaintiff is breached.
• No legal remedy is available for the loss.

Leading Judicial Decisions:

Gloucester Grammar School Case (1410): This case is a classic example of the
maxim. A new schoolmaster opened a school next to an existing one, causing the
latter financial loss as students left. The court ruled that no legal injury occurred
since anyone can establish a school, and thus, no action could be taken for the
financial loss.

Mogul Steamship Co. Ltd. v. McGregor, Gow & Co. (1892): This case involved
steamship companies forming a consortium to outcompete another firm through
competitive pricing. The court held that the loss suffered by the competitor was not
actionable because the consortium's actions were lawful competition.

2. Injuria Sine Damnum

Meaning: "Injuria sine damnum" translates to "legal injury without damage." It

refers to situations where a legal right is breached, but the plaintiff suffers no
actual damage or loss. The violation of the legal right alone is sufficient to entitle
the plaintiff to a remedy, usually nominal damages.

Key Characteristics:

• No actual damage or loss occurs.

 • A legal right of the plaintiff is breached.
• The plaintiff is entitled to a remedy due to the violation of the right.

Leading Judicial Decisions:

Ashby v. White (1703): This seminal case for the maxim "injuria sine damnum"
involved Ashby, a qualified voter, being wrongfully prevented from voting by a
returning officer. Although the election result was unaffected, the court ruled that
Ashby’s legal right to vote had been violated, entitling him to seek damages.

Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1985): Bhim Singh, a Member of
the Legislative Assembly, was wrongfully detained by police, preventing him from
attending a legislative session. The Supreme Court of India ruled that Singh’s legal
right to personal liberty had been breached, and despite no substantial damage, he
was entitled to compensation for the violation of his fundamental rights.

Summary

• Damnum sine injuria: Involves actual loss without a legal injury, and thus,
no legal remedy is available. Examples include lawful competitive business
practices causing loss to a competitor.
• Injuria sine damnum: Involves the breach of a legal right without actual
damage, entitling the affected party to a remedy. Examples include wrongful
deprivation of the right to vote or personal liberty.

These maxims help define the limits of actionable claims in tort law, ensuring that
not all losses or violations lead to legal proceedings, but only those involving legal
rights.
General defences in law of torts with respective case
laws for 15 marks

In tort law, several general defenses can be invoked by defendants to

avoid liability. These defenses help demonstrate that even though the
plaintiff may have suffered harm, the defendant is not legally
responsible. Here are the primary general defenses in tort law, along
with relevant case laws:

1. Volenti Non Fit Injuria (Consent)

Meaning: This defense means "to one who consents, no harm is done."
If the plaintiff voluntarily consented to the risk of harm, they cannot
claim compensation for the resulting injury.

Key Case Law:

• Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club (1933): The plaintiff

attended a car race and was injured when a car crashed into the
spectators. The court held that by attending the race, the plaintiff
consented to the inherent risks, and the defense of volenti non fit
injuria was upheld.

2. Contributory Negligence

Meaning: If the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the harm

suffered, the defendant's liability may be reduced or eliminated.

Key Case Law:

• Butterfield v. Forrester (1809): The plaintiff was riding his horse

negligently and collided with an obstruction placed by the
defendant. The court held that the plaintiff's negligence contributed
to the accident, and thus, he was not entitled to damages.

3. Act of God (Vis Major)

Meaning: This defense applies when the harm is caused by natural
forces beyond human control, such as earthquakes, floods, or storms.

Key Case Law:

• Nichols v. Marsland (1876): The defendant had artificial lakes on

his property that were breached by an extraordinary and
unprecedented rainfall, causing damage to the plaintiff's property.
The court held that the rainfall was an Act of God, and the
defendant was not liable.

4. Inevitable Accident

Meaning: If the harm was caused by an accident that could not have
been prevented despite taking reasonable care, the defendant can use this
defense.

Key Case Law:

• Stanley v. Powell (1891): During a hunting trip, a shot fired by the

defendant accidentally ricocheted off a tree and injured the
plaintiff. The court ruled that it was an inevitable accident, and the
defendant was not liable.

5. Private Defense

Meaning: A person is entitled to use reasonable force to protect

themselves, their property, or others from an imminent threat of harm.

Key Case Law:

• Bird v. Holbrook (1828): The defendant set up a spring gun in his

garden without warning to deter trespassers. The plaintiff, unaware
of the gun, was injured by it. The court held that setting such a trap
without warning was not a reasonable exercise of private defense.

6. Necessity
Meaning: This defense applies when an act that would otherwise be a
tort is done to prevent greater harm.

Key Case Law:

• Southwark London Borough Council v. Williams (1971):

Homeless individuals occupied empty houses owned by the
council out of necessity. The court held that necessity is not a
defense to trespass in such cases, emphasizing that necessity
should only apply to prevent greater harm.

7. Statutory Authority

Meaning: If an act causing harm is authorized by a statute, the

defendant is not liable for the consequences.

Key Case Law:

• Vaughan v. Taff Vale Railway (1860): The defendant railway

company was authorized by statute to run trains. Sparks from the
train caused a fire that damaged the plaintiff's property. The court
held that the railway company was not liable as it was performing
an act authorized by statute.

Conclusion

The general defenses in tort law, including volenti non fit injuria,
contributory negligence, Act of God, inevitable accident, private
defense, necessity, and statutory authority, provide important protections
for defendants. Each defense has its specific criteria and is supported by
landmark case laws that illustrate how courts have interpreted and
applied these principles. These defenses ensure that liability in tort law
is fair and just, taking into account the circumstances surrounding the
alleged tortious act.
Vicarious Liability
Vicarious liability is a legal principle whereby one party is held liable
for the wrongful actions of another party. This often occurs in employer-
employee relationships, where employers are held responsible for the
torts committed by employees during the course of their employment.
The rationale behind this principle is that employers have control over
their employees and benefit from their work, so they should also bear the
risks associated with their actions.

Key Elements of Vicarious Liability

1. Existence of a Relationship: Typically, an employer-employee relationship
must be established.
2. Tortious Act Committed: The employee must have committed a tort.
3. Course of Employment: The wrongful act must have been committed in the
course of employment.

Leading Case Laws

1. Limpus v. London General Omnibus Company (1862)

Facts: A bus driver, employed by the defendant company, was

instructed not to obstruct other buses. Despite this, he deliberately
obstructed a rival bus, causing an accident.

Decision: The court held the company vicariously liable for the driver's
actions, as he was performing his duties (driving the bus) even though he
did so in an unauthorized manner. The wrongful act was within the
course of employment.
2. Century Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Northern Ireland Road Transport Board (1942)

Facts: A petrol tanker driver, while delivering petrol, lit a cigarette and
negligently discarded the match, causing an explosion.
Decision: The employer was held vicariously liable because the driver’s
negligent act occurred during the course of his employment, while he
was engaged in activities related to his job (delivering petrol).
3. Salmond v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1961)

Facts: The plaintiff was assaulted by a police constable employed by the

State of Uttar Pradesh. The constable acted in his capacity as an officer
but abused his authority.

Decision: The Supreme Court of India held the state vicariously liable
for the constable's actions, emphasizing that the wrongful act was
committed in the course of employment and related to his duties.
4. Rose v. Plenty (1976)

Facts: A milkman employed by the defendant company used a child

helper to assist in his deliveries, despite being instructed not to. The
child was injured due to the milkman’s negligence.

Decision: The court found the employer vicariously liable. Even though
the milkman had disobeyed instructions, he was still engaged in
activities related to his employment (delivering milk).
5. Lister v. Hesley Hall Ltd. (2001)

Facts: A warden at a boarding school sexually abused children under his

care. The warden was employed by Hesley Hall Ltd.

Decision: The House of Lords held the employer vicariously liable,

stating that the wrongful acts were closely connected to the warden’s
employment. The abuse occurred in the environment and during the time
the warden was employed to care for the children.
6. Dubai Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Salaam (2002)

Facts: Partners in a law firm were involved in fraudulent activities

causing loss to the plaintiff. The fraudulent acts were committed by one
of the partners during the course of the partnership business.

Decision: The House of Lords held the law firm vicariously liable for
the partner’s fraudulent acts, as they were performed within the ordinary
course of the firm’s business.

Conclusion

Vicarious liability ensures that employers are held responsible for the
wrongful acts of their employees committed in the course of
employment. This principle aims to provide a remedy to the injured
party and distribute the risk of harm to those who benefit from the
activities. The landmark cases of Limpus v. London General Omnibus
Company, Century Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Northern Ireland Road
Transport Board, Salmond v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Rose v. Plenty,
Lister v. Hesley Hall Ltd., and Dubai Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Salaam
illustrate the application of vicarious liability in various contexts,
highlighting its importance in ensuring accountability and justice.
Strict Liability vs. Absolute Liability (15 Marks)
Strict Liability (8 Marks)

• Definition (2 marks): Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds a defendant liable for
harm caused by their activity, regardless of fault or negligence. In simpler terms, even if
the defendant took all reasonable precautions, they can still be held responsible.
• Key Points (2 marks):
o Applies to inherently dangerous activities (e.g., keeping wild animals) or
defective products.
o Plaintiff only needs to prove the harm and the defendant's involvement.
• Defenses (2 marks):
o Act of God (unforeseeable natural event)
o Plaintiff's consent (knowingly assumed the risk)
o Statutory authority (legal permission for the activity)
• Case Law (2 marks):
o Rylands v Fletcher (1868): Defendant built a reservoir that burst, flooding a
neighbor's mine. Strict liability applied due to the dangerous nature of storing
large quantities of water.

Absolute Liability (7 Marks)

• Definition (2 marks): Absolute liability is a stricter form of strict liability. The defendant
is held liable for harm, regardless of fault, defenses, or exceptions.
• Key Points (2 marks):
o Applies to ultra-hazardous activities (e.g., nuclear power) with a high risk of
causing severe damage.
o Focuses on preventing harm and ensuring polluter pays principle.
• Case Law (3 marks):
o M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987): Oleum gas leak from a factory caused
widespread damage. The court established absolute liability for such hazardous
industries in India.

.
Malicious Prosecution: A Civil Wrong (15 Marks)
Definition (2 marks): Malicious prosecution is a tort (civil wrong) that
occurs when someone initiates legal proceedings against another person
(plaintiff) without probable cause and with malice. The original
proceedings must be terminated in favor of the plaintiff.

Elements (4 marks):
1. Initiation of Legal Proceedings: The defendant must have initiated or
caused the initiation of a criminal or civil legal action against the plaintiff.
2. Termination in Favor of Plaintiff: The original legal proceedings against the
plaintiff must have ended in their favor, such as dismissal, acquittal, or a
favorable judgment.
3. Lack of Probable Cause: The defendant must have lacked a reasonable
belief that the plaintiff was guilty or liable for the alleged offense.
4. Malice: The defendant must have acted with malice, meaning a primary
purpose other than a legitimate pursuit of justice. This could be spite,
revenge, or an ulterior motive.

Defenses (4 marks):
1. Probable Cause: The defendant can argue they had a reasonable belief the
plaintiff was guilty based on the information available at the time.
2. Advice of Counsel: If the defendant consulted with an attorney and acted
on their advice in good faith, they may have a defense.
3. Privilege: Certain individuals may have immunity from malicious
prosecution claims due to their role, such as judges or witnesses.
4. Statutory Immunity: Some statutes may provide immunity for specific
types of reports or accusations.

Case Law (5 marks):

1. Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. (1928): Established limitations on the scope
of liability in malicious prosecution cases (unforeseen consequences).
2. Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009): Highlighted the importance of pleading specific
facts to show malice in federal malicious prosecution claims.
. Trespass
Trespass in tort law refers to the unlawful interference with one's person, property,
or land. The primary forms of trespass are:

• Trespass to Land: Unauthorized entry onto another's property.

• Trespass to Person: Includes assault, battery, and false imprisonment.
• Trespass to Goods: Interference with the possession of personal property.

2. Elements of Trespass

For a successful trespass claim, the following elements generally need to be

established:

1. Intentional Act: The act leading to the trespass must be intentional, though not
necessarily intended to cause harm.
2. Interference: There must be an interference with the plaintiff’s possession of land,
person, or goods.
3. Lack of Consent: The act must be without the consent of the person in lawful possession
of the land, person, or goods.
4. Damage (in some cases): Although not always required, proving damage can strengthen
a case.

3. Types of Trespass

• Trespass to Land: Any unauthorized entry onto land. For example, in Entick v.
Carrington (1765), the court held that unauthorized entry by the king’s agents
constituted trespass.
• Trespass to Person: Acts such as assault (threat of violence), battery (unlawful physical
contact), and false imprisonment (unlawful restraint). In Collins v. Wilcock (1984), it was
held that any unlawful physical contact constitutes battery.
• Trespass to Goods: Wrongful interference with goods in possession of another, as seen
in Kirk v. Gregory (1876), where the unauthorized removal of jewelry was deemed
trespass to goods.

4. Defenses to Trespass

Several defenses can be raised against a trespass claim, including:

1. Consent: If the plaintiff consented to the defendant’s actions, there is no trespass.

2. Necessity: Actions taken to prevent greater harm (e.g., entering property to put out a
fire).
3. Self-defense: Protecting oneself from imminent harm.
 4. Defense of Property: Reasonable force to protect one’s property.
5. Lawful Authority: Actions taken under legal authority, such as police entering property
with a warrant.

5. Case Laws

Trespass to Land

• Entick v. Carrington (1765): Established that unauthorized entry by government officials

is a trespass.

Trespass to Person

• Collins v. Wilcock (1984): Defined that any unauthorized physical contact constitutes
battery.

Trespass to Goods

• Kirk v. Gregory (1876): Held that unauthorized interference with goods is a trespass.

Defenses

• Necessity: In Southwark London Borough Council v. Williams (1971), necessity was not
accepted as a defense to trespassing by homeless individuals.
• Self-defense: In Cockroft v. Smith (1705), it was established that self-defense is a valid
defense to battery if the force used is proportionate.

Conclusion

A well-rounded answer will explain the legal principles, cite specific cases to
illustrate those principles, and discuss the various defenses available to a trespass
claim. Each point should be elaborated with sufficient detail to demonstrate a deep
understanding of the topic.
4o