Law of Tort vs Law of Torts
Understanding the Nuances of Tort Law and Its Interpretations
Is It Law of Tort or Law of Torts?
This question has sparked various interpretations among academic scholars, each trying to define the nature of tort/torts under the common law system. The debate was notably highlighted by the esteemed scholar Salmond, who asked whether the law of tort consists of a fundamental general principle that it is wrongful to cause harm to others without justification or excuse, or whether it consists of a number of specific rules prohibiting certain harmful activities, leaving all other actions outside the sphere of legal responsibility.
This question goes back to the core issue: Is it the law of tort (a singular, overarching principle) or the law of torts (a collection of specific wrongs)?
Salmond's Pigeon Hole Theory aligns with the second perspective, the law of torts. He likened the specified wrongs to "pigeon holes," suggesting that a wrongful act must fit into one of these categories to be considered a tort. If a wrongful act doesn't fit into any of these pigeon holes, it means no tort has been committed. Salmond compared this to criminal law, stating that just as criminal law defines specific offenses, the law of torts defines specific injuries.
Thus, in both criminal and tort law, the burden lies on the claimant to prove that the case fits within a specific rule of liability.
Other scholars have also supported Salmond's theory. Dr. Jenks, for instance, opined that Salmond never suggested that courts couldn't create new torts; rather, any new torts should be similar to existing ones. Similarly, Heuston and Dr. Glanville Williams noted that while the pigeon holes represent specific torts, these categories are not rigid and can expand to accommodate new heads of liability.
On the other hand, the law of tort was championed by Winfield, who argued that all wrongs should be considered torts unless justified. Winfield compared the law of tort to a tree that grows and branches out in various directions, reflecting the evolving nature of society and the law. This theory encourages the creation of new torts by the courts.
Numerous cases have illustrated the creation of new torts by the courts, such as the rule of strict liability in Rylands v. Fletcher, tort of deceit in Pasley v. Freeman, and others. These cases highlight the flexibility and adaptability of tort law, challenging the pigeon hole theory's limitations.
The Supreme Court of India also recognized the dynamic nature of tort law in Jay Laxmi Salt Work (P.) Ltd. v. The State of Gujarat, noting that the law of torts is a developing field and should not be restricted.
In summary, the debate between the law of tort and the law of torts reflects differing views on the scope and nature of tort law. While Salmond's Pigeon Hole Theory suggests a more structured approach, Winfield's broader theory emphasizes the evolving and expanding nature of tort law. Both perspectives highlight the complexity and richness of this area of law.
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now