Law of Torts - I : Previous Year Questions (2022)

Answer the following questions in one sentence each. (10 x 1 = 10)

Q1. Define 'Tort'.

Ans. A tort is a civil wrong in which one person’s wrongful act causes harm to another, and the law requires the wrongdoer to compensate the injured party. It is not based on a contract but on a duty imposed by law, and the main aim is to provide a remedy for the harm suffered.

Q2. What do you mean by exemplary damages?

Ans. Exemplary damages refers to the kind of damages where the purpose of paying damages is not compensating the plaintiff, but to deter the wrongdoer from repeating the wrong committed by him.

Q3. What is Sovereign Immunity?

Ans. If the act causing the injury was committed in the exercise of sovereign power (acts that cannot be delegated to a private person, e.g., maintenance of the army, police, administration of justice, making war/peace), the State would not be liable.

This is referred to as sovereign immunity.

Q4. What is 'doctrine of alternative danger'?

Ans. Although the plaintiff is supposed to be careful in spite of the defendant’s negligence, there may be certain circumstances when the plaintiff is justified in taking some risk where some dangerous situation has been created by the defendant. The plaintiff might become perplexed or nervous by a dangerous situation created by the defendant and to save his person or property, sometime to save a third party from such danger, he may take an alternative risk. The law, therefore, permits the plaintiff to encounter an alternative danger to save himself from the danger created by the defendant. If the course adopted by him results in some harm to himself, his action against the defendant will not fail. The judgement of the plaintiff, should not, however, be rash.

Q5. What is libel?

Ans. Libel is one of the forms of defamation. It is the representation made in some permanent form, e.g., writing, printing, picture, effigy, or statute.

Q6. What is slander?

Ans. Slander is one of the forms of defamation. It is the publication of a defamatory statement in a transient form; spoken words or gestures etc.

Q7. What is malicious prosecution?

Ans. Malicious prosecution is a legal action where someone initiates or continues a lawsuit against another person without reasonable grounds and with a malicious intent to harm or harass. To win a malicious prosecution claim, the plaintiff must prove the prosecution was initiated without reasonable cause, the defendant acted with malice, and the proceedings terminated in the plaintiff's favour. The goal is to provide a legal remedy for those who have been wrongly subjected to the legal system.

Q8. What is meant by false imprisonment?

Ans. It refers to total restraint of an individual’s liberty without lawful justification. To constitute this wrong, imprisonment in the ordinary sense is not required. When a person is deprived of his personal liberty, whether by being confined within the four wall or by being prevented from leaving the place where he is, it is false imprisonment. If a man is restrained, by a threat of force, from leaving his own house or an open field, there is false imprisonment.

Q9. Define assault.

Ans. It is an act by the defendant causing reasonable apprehension in the plaintiff of an imminent battery.

It is also essential that there should be prima facie ability to do the harm. Mere verbal threat is no assault. When the defendant by his act creates an apprehension in the mind of the plaintiff that he is going to commit battery against the plaintiff, the wrong of assault is completed.

Q10. Mention the various kinds of judicial remedies that are available to the plaintiff.

Ans. Judicial/legal remedies are court-enforced solutions to a wrongful act and primarily include:

1. Damages (monetary compensation),
2. Injunctions (court orders to do or not do something), and
3. Specific restitution of property (returning property to its rightful owner).

These remedies aim to restore the injured party to their pre-tort position, compensate for their loss, or prevent future harm.

Another kind of remedy available under tort law are Extra-Judicial remedies, which refers to lawful actions taken by an injured party to address a wrong themselves, without the intervention of a court of law. These are often referred to as "self-help" remedies and must be exercised using a reasonable amount of force and in a lawful manner.

E.g., expulsion of trespasser, re-entry, abatement of nuisance, etc.

PART – B

Answer the following questions in 4-5 lines each. Each question carries 4 marks. (4 x 4 = 16)

Q11. Distinguish Tort from Crime.

Ans. Distinction between Tort and Crime:

Q12. Explain last opportunity rule with help of case laws.

Ans. According to this rule, if two persons are negligent, then one of them who had the later opportunity of avoiding the accident by taking reasonable care should be liable for the loss. It means that if the defendant is negligent and the plaintiff having a later opportunity to avoid the consequences of the negligence of the defendant does not observe ordinary care, he cannot make the defendant liable for that. Similarly, if the last opportunity to avoid the accident is with the defendant, he will be liable for the whole of the loss to the plaintiff.

Relevant Case Law:

Here is a relevant case law with respect to the last opportunity rule:

1. Davies v. Mann (1882) – In this case, the plaintiff fettered the forefeet of his donkey and left it on a narrow highway. The defendant was driving his wagon driven by horses too fast that it negligently ran over and killed the donkey. In spite of his own negligence, the plaintiff was held entitled to recover because the defendant had the ‘last opportunity’ to avoid the accident.

1. Jang Bahadur Singh v. Sunder Lal Mandal (1969) - In this case, the plaintiff’s horse was injured when the defendant’s bus collided with it. The plaintiff claimed damages, arguing that the bus driver was driving rashly and negligently. The defendant denied fault and argued that the accident was unavoidable.

The court held that the driver of the bus owed a duty of care to others using the road, including those with animals. Evidence showed that the bus was being driven at an excessive speed and without proper control. The accident could have been avoided had the driver acted cautiously.

Therefore, the court found the bus driver negligent and held the defendant liable for the injury caused to the horse. Compensation was awarded to the plaintiff.

Q13. Explain the maxim 'ubi jus ibi remedium'.

Ans. The maxim “ubi jus ibi remedium” means “where there is a right, there is a remedy.” It expresses the idea that the law does not recognize a right in theory unless it also provides a way to protect or enforce that right. If someone’s legal right is violated, whether it concerns property, reputation, personal safety, or any other civil interest, the law must offer some form of relief, usually through compensation or another appropriate remedy.

This principle forms the foundation of the Law of Torts. It ensures that wrongdoers are held accountable and that victims are not left without support simply because the harm was not specifically mentioned in a statute. The maxim also reflects the fairness of the legal system: a right without a remedy would be meaningless, so the law steps in wherever a genuine injury is shown.

Relevant Case Law:

1. Ashby v. White (1703) - In this case, Matthew Ashby, a qualified voter in Aylesbury, was unlawfully denied his right to vote by the returning officer, William White, during a parliamentary election. Although the candidate Ashby supported won, resulting in no financial loss or change to the election outcome, Ashby sued White for damages. Initially debated in the Court of King's Bench, the case was ultimately decided by the House of Lords in favour of Ashby. The majority decision established key principles, including:
2. Ubi jus ibi remedium: Chief Justice Holt emphasized that a legal right must be accompanied by a means to protect it and a remedy for its violation.
3. Injuria sine damno: The case illustrates that violating a legal right constitutes an "injury" (injuria), even without tangible "damage" (damnum). The right to vote was deemed a fundamental legal right whose infringement was an injury in itself.

1. Accountability of public officials: The ruling underscored the importance of holding public officials accountable and safeguarding individual rights from the abuse of power. 

Q14. Write a short note on "volenti non fit injuria".

Ans. This means that "if the suffering is willing, no injury is done." When a person consents to the infliction of some harm upon himself, he has no remedy for that in tort; his consent serves as a good defence against him. Consent to suffer the harm may be expressed or implied. When you invite somebody to your house, you cannot sue him for trespass.

Many a time, the consent may be implied or inferred from the conduct of the parties. For example, a person going on a highway is presumed to consent to the risk of pure accidents. In the same way, a spectator at a cricket match or a motor race cannot recover if he is hit by the ball or injured by a car coming on the track.

For the defence of consent to be available, the act causing the harm must not go beyond the limit of what has been consented. A player in a game of hockey has no right of action if he is hit while the game is being lawfully played. But if there is a deliberate injury caused by another player, the defence of volenti, cannot be pleaded. Similarly, if a surgeon negligently performs an operation, he cannot avoid the liability by pleading the defence of consent.

Relevant Case Laws:

1. Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club (1932) – In this case, the plaintiff was a spectator at a motor car race being held at Brooklands on a track owned by the defendant company. During the race, there was a collision between two cars, one of which was thrown among the spectators, thereby injuring the plaintiff. It was held that the plaintiff impliedly took the risk of such injury, the danger being inherent in the sport which any spectator could foresee, the defendant was not liable.

1. Padmavati v. Dugganaika (1975) – In this case, while the driver was taking the jeep for filling petrol in the tank, two strangers took lift in the jeep. Suddenly, one of the bolts fixing the right front wheel to the axle gave way toppling the jeep. The two strangers were thrown out and sustained injuries, and one of them died as a consequence of the same. It was held that neither the driver nor his master could be made liable, firstly, because it was case of sheer accident and, secondly, the strangers had voluntarily got into the jeep and as such, the principle of volenti non fit injuria was applicable to this case.

This maxim (volenti non fit injuria) is subject to a number of exceptions: -

1. The game or sports or the operations must not be one which is banned by law. Football, Cricket, Hockey etc. are lawful games. However, Boxing with open fists, duel with poisonous swords are legally prohibited. In such cases the maxim does not apply. The injury may be sustained by the persons who are participating in the games or by the spectators or by third parties.

2. Consent: The consent must be free and voluntary. If consent is obtained by fraud it is no consent. Moreover, the act done by the defendant must be the same for which the consent is given. Thus, if you invite some person to your house, you cannot sue him for trespass when he enters your premises. But, if the visitor goes to a place for which no consent is given, he will be liable for trespass.

For instance, a postman has the implied consent of the resident of a building to go up to a particular place to deliver dak. For his entry up to that particular point, he cannot be made liable. If the postman goes beyond that limit and enters the rooms of the house, he would be liable for the trespass.

Relevant Case Laws:

1. Lakshmi Rajan v. Malar Hospital Ltd. (1998) – In this case, the complainant, a married woman, aged 40 years, noticed development of a painful lump in her breast. The lump had no effect on her uterus, but during surgery, her uterus was removed without any justification. It was held that the opposite party, i.e., the hospital, was liable for deficiency in service. It was also held that the patient’s consent for the operation did not imply her consent to the removal of the uterus.

When a person is incapable of giving his consent because of his insanity or minority, consent of such person’s parent or guardian is sufficient. Thus, a surgeon performing a surgical operation of a child with the guardian’s consent is protected even though the child protests against the operation.

3. Scienti non fit injuria: Knowledge of Risk is not equal to consent of risk. In other words, mere knowledge does not imply consent.

Relevant Case Laws:

1. Smith v. Baker (1891) – In this case, the plaintiff was a workman employed by the defendants on working a drill for the purpose of cutting a rock. By the help of a crane, stones were being conveyed from one side to the other, and each time the stones were being were conveyed, the crane passed from over the plaintiff’s head. While he was busy in his work, a stone fell from the crane and injured him. The employers were negligent in not warning him at the moment of a recurring danger, although the plaintiff had been generally aware of the risk. It was held by the House of Lords that as there was mere knowledge of risk without the assumption of it, the maxi volenti non fit injuria did not apply, and the defendants were liable.

4. Rescue Cases: The scope of application of the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria has been curtailed in rescue cases. In spite of the fact that the plaintiff has consented to suffer the harm, he may still be entitled to his action against the defendant in these exceptional situations.

Relevant case laws:

1. Haynes v. Harwood (1935) – In this case, the defendants’ servant left a two-horse van unattended in a street. A boy threw a stone on the horses and they bolted, causing grave danger to women and children on the road. A police constable, who was on duty inside a nearby police station, on seeing the same, managed to stop the horses, but in doing so, he himself suffered serious personal injuries. It being a ‘rescue case’, the defence of ‘volenti non fit injuria’ was not accepted and the defendants were held liable. However, a person who is injured in an attempt to stop a horse which creates no danger will be without remedy.

Sometimes, the question which arises is, does the rule in Haynes v. Harwood apply in cases of rescue of property? The question was answered in the affirmative in Hyett v. Great Western Railway Company. In that case, the plaintiff was injured in an attempt to save the defendant’s railway cars from fire which had occurred due to the negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff’s conduct was considered to be reasonable and on the basis of the doctrine of Haynes v. Harwood which was applied in this case, the defendant was held liable.

PART – C

Answer the following questions in 400 words each. Attempt any three. Each question carries 8 marks. (3 x 8 = 24)

Q15. Distinguish between damnun sine injuria and injuria sine dumnum with the help of decided cases.

Ans. In order to be successful in an action for tort, the plaintiff has to prove that there has been a legal damage caused to him. Unless there has been violation of a legal right, there can be no action under law of torts.

With respect to legal damage, there are two legal maxims to be understood:

1. Injuria Sine Damno (Injury Without Damage) –

The infringement of a legal right is actionable even if it causes no actual loss or harm (e.g., trespass, where the legal right to property is violated).

There are two kinds of torts:

Firstly, those torts which are actionable per se, i.e., actionable without the proof of any damage or loss. For instance, trespass to land is actionable even though no damage has been caused as a result of the trespass.

Secondly, the torts which are actionable only on the proof of some damage caused by an act.

Injuria Sine Damno covers the first of the above stated cases. In such cases, there is no need to prove that as a consequence of an act, the plaintiff has suffered any harm. For a successful action, the only thing which has to be proved is that the plaintiff’s legal right has been violated, i.e., there is injuria.

Relevant Case Laws:

1. Ashby v. White (1703) – In this case, the plaintiff succeeded in his action, even though the defendant’s act did not cause any damage. The plaintiff was a qualified voter at a Parliamentary election, but the defendant, a returning officer, wrongfully refused to take plaintiff’s vote. No loss was suffered by such refusal because the candidate for whom he wanted to won the election in spite of that. It was held that the defendant was liable.   

1. Bhim Singh v. State of J & K (1986) – In this case, the petitioner, an M.L.A. of J & K Assembly, was wrongfully detained by police while he was going to attend the Assembly session. He was not produced before the magistrate within the requisite period. As a consequence of this, the member was deprived of his constitutional right to attend the Assembly session. There was also violation of fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. By the time the petition was decided by the Supreme Court, Bhim Singh had been released, but by way of consequential relief, exemplary damages amounting to Rs. 50,000 were awarded to him.

2. Damnum Sine Injuria (Damage without Legal Injury) –

Causing actual harm or loss is not actionable if no legal right was violated (e.g., business competition resulting in lost profits).

In Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills, (1935), it was held that:

“The mere fact that a man is injured by another’s act given in itself no cause of action; if the act is deliberate, the party injured will have no claim in law even though the injury is intentional, so long as the other party is exercising a legal right.”

Relevant Case Laws:

1. Gloucester Grammar School Case (1410) – In this case, the defendant, a schoolmaster, set up a rival school to that of the plaintiffs’. Because of the competition, the plaintiffs had to reduce their fees from 40 pence to 12 pence per scholar per quarter. It was held that plaintiffs had no remedy for the loss thus suffered by them. No legal right was violated.

1. Ushaben v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir (1978) – In this case, the plaintiffs sued for a permanent injunction against the defendants to restrain them from exhibiting the film named “Jai Santoshi Maa”. It was contended that the film hurt the religious feelings of the plaintiff in so far as Goddesses Saraswati, Laxmi, and Parvati were depicted as jealous and were ridiculed. It was observed that hurt to religious feelings had not been recognised as a legal wrong. Moreover, no person has a legal right to enforce his religious views on another or to restrain another from doing a lawful act, merely because it did not fit in with the tenets of his particular religion. Since there was no violation of a legal right, request or injunction was rejected.

Q16. Discuss the concept of nuisance with help of decided case laws.

Ans. Nuisance as a tort means an unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it. Acts interfering with comfort, health, or safety are the examples of it. The interference may be anyway, e.g., noise, vibrations, heat, smoke, smell, fumes, water, gas, electricity, excavation or disease producing germs.

Kinds/Types of Nuisance:

Nuisance is of two kinds:

1. Public or Common Nuisance
2. Private Nuisance, or Tort of Nuisance

1. Public Nuisance

Defined under Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code / Section 270 of the BNS.

Public Nuisance is a crime whereas private nuisance is a civil wrong. Public Nuisance is interference with the right of public in general and is punishable as an offence.

Case Law:

Here is a relevant case law with respect to Public Nuisance:

1. Dr. Ram Raj Singh v. Babulal (1982) – In this case, the defendant created a brick grinding machine adjoining the premises of the plaintiff, who was a medical practitioner. The brick grinding machine generated dust, which polluted the atmosphere. The dust entered the consulting chamber of the plaintiff and cause physical inconvenience to him and patients, and their red coating on clothes, caused by the dust, could be apparently visible. It was held that special damages to the plaintiff had been proved and a permanent injunction was issued against the defendant restraining him from running brick grinding machine there.

2. Private Nuisance

Unauthorized use of one’s property causing damage to another’s property or interference with proprietary rights. It may involve obstruction to light, wrongful escape of gases, noise, water, etc.

Essential Elements:

To constitute the tort of nuisance, the following essentials are required to be proved:

A) Unreasonable Interference;

B) Interference with the use or enjoyment of land;

C) Damage.

A) Unreasonable Interference

Interference may cause damage to the plaintiff’s property or may cause personal discomfort to the plaintiff in the enjoyment of property.

A balance has to be made between the right of the occupier to do what he likes with his own, and the right of his neighbour not to be interfered with.”

For the purpose of nuisance, it has to be seen as to “what is reasonable according to the ordinary usages of mankind living in society, or more correctly in particular society.”

Case Laws:

Here are some relevant case laws with respect to Unreasonable Interference:

1. Radhey Shyam v. Gur Prasad (1978) – In this case, Gur Prasad and another filed a suit against Radhey Shyam and others for a permanent injunction to restrain them from installing and running a flour mill in their premises. It was alleged that the said mill would cause nuisance to the plaintiffs, who were occupying the first floor portion of the same premises inasmuch as the plaintiffs would lose their peace on account of rattling noise of the flour mill and thereby their health would also be adversely affected. It was held that substantial addition to the noise in a noisy locality, by the running of the impugned machines, seriously interfered with the physical comfort of the plaintiffs and as such, it amounted to nuisance, and the plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction against the defendants.

Now we have three aspects with respect to Unreasonable Interference:

i. Sensitive Plaintiff - Reasonable acts do not become unreasonable due to the plaintiff’s sensitivity.

For instance, if some noises which do not disturb or annoy an ordinary person but disturb only the plaintiff in his work or sleep due to his over sensitiveness, it is no nuisance against the plaintiff.

Relevant Case Law:

1. Robinson v. Kilvert (1889) – In this case, the plaintiff warehoused brown paper in a building. The heat created by the defendant in the lower portion of the same building for his own business dried and diminished the value of the plaintiff’s brown paper. The loss was due to an exceptionally delicate trade of the plaintiff and paper generally would not have been damaged by the defendant’s operations. It was held that the defendant was not liable for the nuisance. “A man who carries on the exceptionally delicate trade cannot complain because it is injured by his neighbour doing something lawful on his own property, if it is something which would not injure anything but an exceptionally delicate trade.”

ii. Does nuisance connote state of affairs - Nuisance is a continued wrong, casual inconveniences not generally considered.

Relevant Case Law:

1. Stone v. Bolton (1949) – In this case, the plaintiff, while standing on a highway, was injured by a cricket ball hit from the defendant’s ground, but she could not succeed in her action for nuisance. It was held that an isolated act of hitting a cricket ball on to a road cannot amount to a nuisance.

iii. Malice – If an act is otherwise lawful, it does not become unlawful merely because the same has been done with an evil motive, but if it becomes unreasonable, it is actionable.

B) Interference with the use or enjoyment of land

Interference may cause either:

i. Injury to the property itself, or

ii. Injury to comfort or health of occupants of certain property.

i. Injury to property – An unauthorised interference with the use of the property of another person through some object, tangible or intangible, which causes damage to the property, is actionable as nuisance.

Relevant Case Law:

1. St. Helen’s Smelting Co. v. Tipping (1865) – In this case, fumes from the defendant company’s works damaged plaintiff’s trees and shrubs. Such damage being an injury to property, it was held that the defendants were liable. The plea that locality was devoted to works of that kind was unsuccessful.

ii. Injury to comfort or health – Substantial interference with the comfort and convenience in using the premises is actionable as a nuisance. A mere trifling or fanciful inconvenience is not enough.

The rule is De minimis non curat lex, that means that the law does not take account of very trifling matters.

Disturbance to the neighbours by playing music in day is a reasonable act, but playing the same music at night so as to disturb the sleep of the neighbour constitutes nuisance.

C) Damage

Unlike trespass, which is actionable per se, actual damage is required to be proved in an action for nuisance. In the case of public nuisance, the plaintiff can bring an action in tort only when he proves a special damage to him. In private nuisance, although damage is one of the essentials, the law will often presume it.

Relevant Case Law:

1. Fay v. Prentice (1854) – In this case, a pillar of the defendant’s house projected over the plaintiff’s garden. It was held that the mere fact that the pillar projected over the plaintiff’s garden raises a presumption of fall of rain water into and damage to the garden and the same need not be proved. It was a nuisance.

Defences against Nuisance:

1. Prescription

Right acquired through long and continuous use (20 years in India, as per Limitation Act and Easements Act).

Case Law:

1. Sturges v. Bridgman (1879) – In this case, the defendant, a confectioner had a kitchen in the rear of his house. For over twenty years, confectionary materials were pounded in his kitchen by the use of large pestles and mortars, and the noise and vibrations of these were not felt to be a nuisance during that period by the plaintiff., a physician, living in the adjacent house. The physician made a consulting room in the garden in the rear in his house and then for the first time, he felt that noise and vibrations caused in the confectioner’s kitchen were a nuisance and they materially interfered with this practice. The court granted an injunction against the confectioner, and his claim of prescriptive right to use mortars and pestles there, failed because the interference had not been an actionable nuisance for the preceding period of 20 years. Nuisance began only when the consulting room was built by the physician at the end of the house.

2. Statutory Authority

Acts authorized by statute can be a defence.

Thus, a railway company authorised to run railway trains on a track is not liable if, in spite of due care, the sparks from the engine set fire to the adjoining property or the value of the adjoining property is depreciated by the noise, vibrations and smoke by the running of trains.

Defences that don’t work (Ineffectual Defences):

1. Nuisance due to act of others – Combined actions causing nuisance.

Sometimes the act of two or more persons, acting independently of each other, may cause nuisance although the act of any one of them alone would not be so. An action can be brought against any one of them and it is no defence that the act of the defendant alone would not be a nuisance, and the nuisance was caused when other had also acted in the same way.

Case Law:

1. Lambton v. Mellish (1894) – In this case, two rival businesses, owned by Mellish and Cox, were operating merry-go-rounds with loud organs in a common area, competing for customers. The combined noise created an actionable nuisance for a nearby resident. The court found both parties liable. The court reasoned that when a nuisance is the result of the aggregate of two or more smaller offenses, and the parties are aware of each other's actions, each party is responsible for the overall damage. An injunction could be granted against both, requiring each to stop playing their organ, even if one's organ alone was not loud enough to be a nuisance by itself.

2. Public Good - Public benefit does not justify individual nuisance.

It is no defence to say that what is a nuisance to a particular individual is beneficial to the public in general, otherwise no public utility undertaking could be held liable for the unlawful interference with the rights of individuals.

Case Law:

1. Adams v. Ursell (1913) – In this case, an injunction was issued preventing the continuance of fried fish shop in the residential part of a street although, as alleged, the injunction would mean a great hardship to the defendant and his ‘poor’ customers.

3. Reasonable Care – Use of reasonable care to prevent nuisance is generally no defence.

Case Law:

1. Rapier v. London Tramways Co. (1893) – In this case, considerable stench amounting to nuisance was caused from the defendant’s stables constructed to accommodate 200 horses to draw their trams. The defence that maximum possible care was taken to prevent the nuisance failed and the defendants were held liable.

4. Plaintiff coming to nuisance – It is no defence that the plaintiff himself came to the place of nuisance.

Case Law:

1. Bills v. Hall (1838) – In this case, in an action for nuisance for “Diverse noisome, noxious and offensive vapour, fumes, smell, and stenches” out of defendant’s tallow-chandlery, it was held, to be no defence that business had been continuing for three years before the plaintiff came to that place.

Q17. Explain the ingredients of tort of negligence with the help of decided cases.

Ans. The term Negligence is derived from the Latin term ‘Negligentia’, meaning disregarded.

The tort of Negligence is one of the most significant and frequently litigated areas of tort law. It essentially addresses situations where a person suffers damage or injury due to the carelessness of another. Unlike torts that require intentional action (like Battery or Assault), Negligence focuses on a breach of a duty to take reasonable care.

Types of Negligence:

1. Non-Feasance (Not doing act which you had to do).
2. Mis-Feasance (Doing Act Wrongly)
3. Mal-Feasance (Doing Wrong Act)

Essentials of Negligence:

A successful claim in negligence requires the plaintiff to prove three fundamental elements:

1. Duty of Care: The defendant owed a legal duty to the plaintiff to exercise care.
2. Breach of that Duty: The defendant failed to meet the required standard of care (i.e., they were "negligent").
3. Consequent Damage: The defendant's breach directly caused foreseeable damage or loss to the plaintiff.

1. Duty of Care:

1. Donoghue V. Stevenson (1932) – In this case, M, the manufacturer had sold ginger-beer in an opaque bottle to a retail seller R. R sold it to A who gave a treat with it to a young woman P. P consumed the ginger-beer, but found in the bottle a dead snail. This seriously affected her and she became ill. She sued M, the manufacturer. In fact, there was no contractual duty of M to P, but the House of Lords, held that M was liable. Lord Atkin's judgment is a classic. He held 'You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour, who then in law is my neighbour? the answer seems to be, Persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected by my acts or omissions." It was the duty of the manufacturer to take care that the opaque bottle did not contain noxious matter. It was held that the manufacturer was liable. The "standard of care" as applied by the courts, is the standard of a reasonable man. The care, the skill and the diligence of the person, must be that of an ordinary prudent man under the circumstances.

1. Bolton v. Stone (1951) – In this case, D, a person who was on the roadside, was injured by a cricket-ball hit by the player from the field which was about 100 yards away from the road. There were one or two such rare occasions in the past. The court held that the defendants (the members of the club) were not liable. The hit was so exceptional that no prudent man would have foreseen. Further, it was too remote and no reasonable man would have anticipated.

2. Breach of that Duty:

The second essential condition is that there must be a breach of duty. This is judged with reference to a "reasonable man". According to Alderson J, "Negligence is (i) the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do, (guided by the circumstances on hand) or (ii) doing something which a prudent man would not do". This is the objective standard of a reasonable man. It is the application of "foresee-ability test" i.e. whether a reasonable man would have foreseen.

1. Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works Co. (1856) – In this case, a water company installed water mains, including fireplugs. An unusually severe frost caused a fireplug near the claimant's house to burst, leading to flooding and damage. The court held that the water company was not negligent because they were only required to guard against risks that a reasonable person would foresee. The extreme frost was an event that no ordinary person could have reasonably anticipated. This case establishes the objective standard against which a defendant's conduct is measured.  

1. Roe v. Minister of Health (1954) –  In 1947. Dr. G. gave to R a spinal anesthetic to conduct an operation. The anesthetic which was in a ampoule, had been stored in phenol as usual. But due to an "invisible crack" in the ampoule, phenol had entered and in consequence, the patient R became paralysed. Dr. G had taken all care as a prudent surgeon would have taken and he was not aware of the crack in the ampoule. Held, Dr. G was not liable. The medical literature on the subject was consulted as the set standard and Dr. G was held not negligent.

3. Consequent Damage:

There must be the injury to the plaintiff as a direct consequence of the negligence of the defendant. It must not be too remote.

1. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No. 1)) [1961] – In this case, the defendant's ship, The Wagon Mound, negligently spilled furnace oil into Sydney Harbour. The oil drifted to a nearby wharf where the claimant was carrying out welding work. Sparks from the welding ignited debris floating on the oil, which then set the oil and the wharf on fire, causing significant damage. The court found that while oil pollution was foreseeable, damage by fire was not reasonably foreseeable at the time (based on expert evidence). The defendants were therefore not liable for the fire damage. This ruling overturned the older "direct consequences" test, establishing foreseeability as the test for remoteness of damage.