Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
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.
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.
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.
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 In crime, intention is important. Without mens
a person responsible for civil rea there is hardly any crime to hold a person
wrong mens rea e.g. Guilty mind is not responsible for a crime usually mens rea i.e. guilty
required. mind or mental element is necessary.
3) The purpose of law of torts is In crime the purpose is to punish the offender.
compensate the victim i.e. The The offender is punished by the state in the
wrongdoer has to compensate the interest of the society and with the aim to deter
injured party. the offender from committing it again.
4) The parties in a civil suit for tort are In case of crime the state is always a party, as the
individuals i.e. Individual v/s state takes an action against the wrongdoer as
Individual. crime is a public wrong. Therefore, it is State v/s
Individual.
5) The yardstick for measuring liability in In crime, while deciding the punishment to be
torts is the magnitude of harm caused. given to the offender three factors are taken into
The greater the harm, greater is a the accounts. A) The character of offender, his past
amount of compensation awarded/ to record , whether he has committed the offense
be paid. for the first time or is he a repeater
B) Motive of Wrongdoer.
SIMILARITIES