Tort :

A civil wrong or wrongful act, whether

intentional or accidental, from which injury
occurs to another. Torts include all negligence
cases as well as intentional wrongs which
result in harm. Therefore tort law is one of the
major areas of law (along with contract, real
property and criminal law) and results in more
civil litigation than any other category. Some
intentional torts may also be crimes, such as
assault, battery, wrongful death, fraud,
conversion (a euphemism for theft) and
trespass on property and form the basis for a
lawsuit for damages by the injured party.
Defamation, including intentionally telling
harmful untruths about another-either by print
or broadcast (libel) or orally (slander)-is a tort
and used to be a crime as well.
Word Origin :
this word is from Old French, from Medieval
Latin tortum, literally: something twisted, from
Latin torqure to twist.

What is tort law :

Tort law defines the conditions under which a
person is entitled to damage compensation if
her claim is not based on a contractual
obligation. Damages result from the loss or
impairment of property, health, life or limb,
from the infringement of rights or from pure
financial or non-financial losses. Economically
speaking every reduction of an individuals
utility level caused by a tortious act can be
regarded as a damage. Tort law rules aim at
drawing a just and fair line between those
noxious events that should lead to damage
compensation and others for which the
damage should lie where it falls. In Common
Law countries tort law has developed from a
large body of formerly unrelated doctrines such
as conversion, tresspass, nuisance,
defamation, negligence, deceit and rules from
case law. On the European continent a more
systematic and rationalistic approach resulted
in the formulation of some basic concepts of
tort law. This made it possible to formulate
abstract and flexible principles and integrate
them into the codifications.
Important factors of tort law :

A tort case is one citizen prosecuting another.

The state, other than trying the case, is
uninvolved in the prosecution process. This
contrasts with criminal law, where police
investigate and the state prosecutes. Tort law
does however relate, in certain circumstances,
to criminal law Halford v Brookes 1991. In some
circumstances, the same facts can involve both
tort and criminal liability. English Civil law, on
which most English-speaking nations based
their law, is well grown in this area. This article
refers to the law of England and Wales. Civil
cases rarely use juries now, and, in tort, only
defamation cases now use juries.
Tort law is essentially balancing one citizens
protected interest against anothers breach of
obligation or duty. However, the two people
involved may not have any contractual
relationship. Contract is a separate legal area,
with its own rules.
Tort provides either a monetary remedy or a
court order or injunction. Injunctions order
someone to do something or prevent someone
from doing something. Describing tort law is
difficult, since it covers miscellaneous civil
wrongs. Tort is a huge topic; a small article

cannot possibly cover it, however by examining

the major torts that people encounter in daily
life one can see its principles. Torts include
negligence, nuisance, defamation, trespass,
malicious prosecution and more.
Negligence :
English law defines negligence as the doing or
omitting to do something, which a reasonable
person would or would not do in the
circumstances, and thus injuring his neighbour.
Donaoghue v Stevenson 1932 is the classic
case in negligence and describes The
Neighbour Principle, which identifies our
neighbour, and the degree of care he requires.
Those who are so closely and directly affected
by my act that I ought reasonably to have
them in contemplation as being affected, when
I am directing my mind to the acts or
omissions, which are called into question.
One must consider ones neighbour to a
degree, reasonable in the circumstances. Hall v
Brooklands Auto-Racing Club 1933 defined the
reasonable person, as an ordinary person, the
man on the Clapham Omnibus. If ones
neighbour is a child, the required care standard

is much higher. A defendant having a particular

skill, for example, a doctor, must act, as any
reasonable doctor would do. The person,
alleging negligence, must prove that
negligence, rather than an accident, occurred
and there must be reasonable evidence that
negligence happened for the jury to consider
the case. The Privy Council decided in The
Wagon Mound 1961 that some damage must
be reasonably foreseeable for there to be
negligence liability. A defendant, who foresees,
or should foresee, some damage or injury
resulting from his action is negligent, even
where the damage that actually occurs is to a
different degree to that envisaged.
Judges and lawyers talk about causation in
negligence cases, which sounds complicated
but only means that the defendants action
must cause the resulting damage. In Barnett v
Kensington and Chelsea Hospital Management
Committee 1969 A casualty department
doctor, who told a man to go and see his family
doctor, rather than treating him, did not
negligently cause his death from arsenic
poisoning, because the man was already
beyond any help the doctor could have given.

Nuisance :
English law recognizes two kinds of nuisance,
Public and Private Nuisance. Both Public and
Private nuisance is using land in a way that
interferes with others. Private nuisance torts
are those interfering with a neighbours
(normal meaning) ordinary enjoyment of his
land, usually by allowing things to escape from
land, noise, animals, odours plants etc. Private
nuisance is substantial and unreasonable
interference with your neighbours right to
peaceful enjoyment of his property. In private
nuisance, the court must balance the
defendants right to use his land as he wishes
against the plaintiffs right to enjoy his own
land. Each case turns on its own facts and the
court will consider all circumstances in deciding
whether the defendant has committed a
private nuisance, for example, behaviour
reasonable in an industrial area will be
unreasonable in a quiet residential area.
Private nuisance is always a civil matter
whereas Public Nuisance is also a criminal
wrong. It is an act, or omission, obstructing,
damaging, or inconveniencing the communitys
rights. Public Nuisance threatens community

health, morals, safety, comfort, welfare or

convenience. The defendant in such a case
may receive a criminal sentence, fine, or both
and the court may require also that he remove
the nuisance or pay for its removal. Someone
polluting a stream might receive a criminal fine
and the court may order him to pay for the
streams detoxification. Keeping diseased
animals, lighting fireworks in the street, a
bordello, illegal drinking den, or gambling
establishment, obstructing the highway, and
much more have been judged a Public
Nuisance in the past.
Defamation :
When famous people are suing one another for
libel, they are using the law on defamation. A
slander is a spoken lie, a libel a published lie, a
spoken comment on a television or radio
programme is libel rather than a slander.
However, whilst a 2006 ruling ruled defamatory
chat room comments as libel, a 2009 High
Court judgment ruled comments on an internet
bulletin board are slander.
Any defamation must be a lie and must make
ordinary people think badly of the victim

affecting his reputation and standing in the

community. The court will only consider serious
reputational damage, and the degree to which
the slander, or libel, has affected that
reputation. Thus, if you were to go around in
your community saying falsely that a local
butchers shop was unhygienic and it sold
rotten meat and the butchers business then
went bankrupt, entirely because of your
comments, you could be liable for damages for
slander. This is because a butchers business
relies on customers confidence that the shop
is hygienic and that the meat it sells is fresh,
for their custom. Bloggers and other Internet
writers may want information on how to avoid
defamation actions.
The defences against defamation actions are
justification, honest comment, and privilege.
Where words are true, or substantially true,
there is no defamation. Honest comment
applies to personal opinion, e.g. a restaurant or
theatre review. To defend a defamation action,
the defendant must show that his comment
was recognizable comment rather than factual
allegation, or that it is based on true facts,
which the commenter must explicitly or

implicitly indicate to the reader, and that the

public has a legitimate interest and concern on
the question. However, if the plaintiff is able to
show that the defendant made the comments
from malice, rather than expressing genuine
opinion, he can defeat an Honest Comment
defence. Showing that the defendant acted
maliciously is difficult, requiring rather more
than showing that the comment was
prejudiced, exaggerated, or unfair.
The courts balance public interest against
peoples right to a good reputation. Privilege
comes in two varieties. Absolute privilege
occurs where the public interest overrides the
need to prevent damage to peoples
reputations. Defamation actions cannot result
from statements by MPs during Parliamentary
proceeding or in reports on such proceedings,
Court reports, which are fair, accurate and
contemporaneous, and complaints and
statements about crime made to police
officers. 1996 Defamation Act schedule 1 :
Qualified privilege applies to people
commenting under a social, moral, or legal
duty to someone having particular interest in
receiving those comments. Each case turns on

its own facts and finding the duty and interest

depends very much on the individual
circumstances. The interest is much more than
gossip or curiosity. The courts have deliberately
not described this defence in detail, but have
developed the law regarding newspapers and
other publications Reynolds v Times
Newspapers LTD House of Lords 1999.
Space forbids describing Tort law fully here.
The above are the Torts that most people
encounter in daily life. Tort arises from common
law rules that have evolved through centuries
and is still growing. Recently, the courts have
been developing a new tort, invasion of
privacy, growing from defamation law, but
apparently now slowly becoming a separate
tort. Whether privacy invasion becomes a 21st,
century tort is uncertain. Tort is a fascinating
topic for lawyers, judges, students, journalists
and others with an interest to study and
discuss. Major components of tort law,
negligence, nuisance or defamation, affect
many peoples lives. Tort law, like all law, is
balances competing interests and enables
people to live complicated lives, in a stable,
generally law-abiding society. Tort law is

evolving now, as it always has, to meet new

circumstances and needs.