Torts Vs Tort

1998 Words8 Pages
This project mainly deals with the debate on whether it is the law of tort or the law of torts. To elaborate on the topic, there would be two broad theories on the basis of which it shall be figured out as to whether it is the law of tort or the law of torts. The debate will take into account the views and opinions of two great thinkers namely Winfield and Salmond.

CONTENTS 1.Tort – A Brief Introduction…………………………… 1.

2. Difference between Law of tort and Law of Torts…………

3. Is it the Law of Tort: Winfield’s view……………………...

4. Supporters of Winnfield’s theory……………………………………

5. Indian judiciary on the concept of law
…show more content…
TORT – A Brief Introduction.

The word “TORT” is a Latin term precisely meaning “TWISTED” or “COOKED UP”. The expression “TORT” has French roots. The term Tort means a WRONGFUL ACT committed by a person, causing injury or damage to another person unnecessarily. The injured party or institute holds the power to file a case in the civil court for a remedy for UNLIQUIDATED DAMAGES or INJUNCTION or any other remedy available.
A tort or a tortious act is a civil wrong under the common law jurisdictions. The person who commits a tortious act is known as a “tortfeasor”. Apart from physical injuries there may be economical, emotional or reputational injuries. The concept of tort also includes violation of constitutional, property and privacy rights. The basic ingredient to constitute a tortious act or a tort is the violation of a legal right of a person. To bring an action of tortious liability, three things need to be proved by the plaintiff:
1. The plaintiff needs to prove that the accused or the defendant was under the obligation to act in a certain manner
2. The plaintiff needs to establish that the defendant breached his duty and did not act in the way he was supposed to ( did not conform his behavior
…show more content…
There are two competing theories that answer this question.
The first theory says that all wrongs are actionable unless there is a lawful justification.
The second theory says that there is no general principle as such but includes only a fixed number of torts such as trespass , nuisance, negligence etc .. and the plaintiff gets no relief or remedy till he proves that his case falls under one of these heads.

Winfield happens to be the chief supporter of this theory that all the injuries done to another person fall under the law of tort unless there is a justification to it that is acceptable by law.
Therefore according to this theory, tort not only consists of those actions that have specific names but also expands its base to include all the unjustifiable harm done as tortuous.


More about Torts Vs Tort

Open Document