case study of tort law

Famous Cases

Liebeck v. McDonald’s

Stella Liebeck, the 79-year-old woman who was severely burned by McDonald’s coffee that she spilled in her lap in 1992, was unfairly held up as an example of frivolous litigation in the public eye. Also referred to as the “Hot Coffee Case”.

Read More...

The Ford Pinto

Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company, 1981

The Pinto, a subcompact car made by Ford Motor Company, became infamous in the 1970s for bursting into flames if its gas tank was ruptured in a collision.

The Tobacco Cases

Do you remember Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man? Cigarette manufacturers don’t use them in their ads anymore, because a series of lawsuits beginning in the 1980s have succeeded in holding Big Tobacco companies accountable for their dangerous products and in making them change some of their practices.

Inetianbor v. Western Sky Financial

  Here’s a case you should know about. It highlights not only the dangers of predatory lenders, but also the many shortcomings of mandatory arbitration. This is another reason why trial by jury, in open court, and subject to the rules of evidence, is so very important. The Founding Fathers knew this; so should you.

Vosburg v. Putney

Here’s what happened: Waukesha, Wisconsin, February 20, 1889. School. Class is in session. There are two boys that we are concerned with, Andrew Vosburg, who is 14, and George Putney, who is 11. They’re sitting across from each other, and Putney, the eleven-year old, reaches across the aisle with his foot, and “hit with his…

Need classroom help?

• --> Login or Sign Up

Shop by Author

• Sabrineh Ardalan
• Robert Bordone
• Robert Clark
• John Coates
• Susan Crawford
• Alonzo Emery
• Heidi Gardner
• Philip B. Heymann
• Howell E. Jackson
• Wendy Jacobs
• Adriaan Lanni
• Jeremy McClane
• Naz Modirzadeh
• Catherine Mondell
• Ashish Nanda
• Charles R. Nesson
• John Palfrey
• Bruce Patton

Todd D. Rakoff

• Lisa Rohrer
• Jeswald W. Salacuse
• James Sebenius

Joseph William Singer

• Holger Spamann
• Carol Steiker
• Guhan Subramanian
• Lawrence Susskind
• David B. Wilkins
• Jonathan Zittrain

Shop by Brand

• Howell Jackson
• Ashish Nanda and Nicholas Semi Haas
• Chad M. Carr
• John Coates, Clayton Rose, and David Lane
• Ashish Nanda and Lauren Prusiner
• Ashish Nanda and Lisa Rohrer
• Ashish Nanda and Monet Brewerton
• View all Brands

Torts is the field of law governing liability for injuries caused by conduct that violates standards of care determined by courts. Because the relevant care standards generally are not specified in contracts, or by criminal statutes, tort law is at the core of the common law process. Subjects typically covered under torts include: intentional torts, negligence, nuisance, strict liability, and products liability.

• Published Old-New
• Published New-Old

The Case of the Smoking Tenant

Joseph William Singer and Esme Caramello

The Case of the Anti-Bacterial Toys

Wendy Jacobs and David Abrams

The Case of the Encumbered Employee

The Case of the Medical Stent

The Case of the Rent-Paying Tenant

David Grossman, Todd Rakoff, Joseph William Singer, with Chris Bates

The Case of the Lead Toys

Todd Rakoff and Joseph William Singer

IPSA LOQUITUR

Tort Law Case Summaries

Tort law cases.

This page provides a list of cases cited in our Tort Law Lecture Notes , as well as other cases you might find useful. It also provides links to case-notes and summaries.

• A v National Blood Authority
• Abouzaid v Mothercare (UK) Ltd
• Adams v Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co
• Adams v Ursell
• Ailsa Craig Fishing Co Ltd v Malvern Fishing Co Ltd
• Airedale NHS Trust v Bland
• Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police
• Alfred Dunhill v Sunoptic
• Allen v Flood
• Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd
• Alexander v Freshwater Properties Limited
• Allied Maples v Simmons & Simmons
• American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd
• Anchor Brewhouse Developments v Berkley House Ltd
• Anns v Merton LBC
• Appleton v Garrett
• Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council
• Arneil v Paterson
• Ashdown v Samuel Williams and Son Ltd
• Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police
• Atkinson v Newcastle Waterworks
• Attia v British Gas
• Attorney-General v PYA Quarries Ltd
• Ayres v Odedra
• Bailey v Ministry of Defence
• Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd
• Baker v TE Hopkins
• Baker v Willoughby
• Balfour v Barty King
• Bamford v Turnley
• Barber v Somerset County Council
• Barker v Corus plc
• Barclays Bank Plc v Various Claimants
• Barnes v Hampshire County Council
• Barnes v Scout Association
• Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital
• Barr v Biffa Waste Services
• Barrett v Enfield LBC
• Barrett v Ministry of Defence
• Bellman v Northampton Recruitment
• Berisha v Stone Superstore
• Bernstein v Skyviews and General Ltd
• Biffa Waste Services Ltd v Maschinenfabrik Ernst Hese GmbH
• Bird v Jones
• Bishop of Rochester v Bridges
• Blackmore v Department for Communities and Local Government
• Blake v Galloway
• Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company
• Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore
• Bogle v McDonalds Restaurants
• Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee
• Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority
• Bolton v Stone
• Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw
• Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club
• Bourhill v Young
• Bourne Leisure Ltd v Marsden
• Bowater v Rowley Regis BC
• BPE Solicitors v Hughes-Holland
• Bradford v Robinson Rentals
• Bradford Corporation v Pickles
• Brooks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
• Brown v Cotterill
• Bridlington Relay Ltd v Yorkshire Electricity Board
• British Celanese v Hunt
• British Transport Commission v Gourley
• Brumder v Motornet Service and Repairs Ltd
• Busby v Berkshire Bed Co Ltd
• Butchart v Home Office
• BXB v Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses
• Calveley v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police
• Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather
• Campbell v Peter Gordon Joiners
• Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman
• Capital & Counties v Hampshire County Council
• Capps v Miller
• Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis
• Cartledge v Jopling
• Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants
• Chadwick v British Transport Commission
• Chadwick v Continental Tyres
• Chatterton v Gerson
• Christie v Davey
• Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v Price
• Clark v Farley
• Cocking v Eacott
• Cole v Turner
• Collins v Wilcock
• Color Quest v Total Downstream
• Commission v UK (C-300/95)
• Conarken Group Ltd v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd
• Cook v Swansea City Council
• Corby Group Litigation v Corby Borough Council
• Corr v IBC Vehicles Pty Ltd
• Coventry v Lawrence
• Coventry v Lawrence (No 2)
• Cox v Ergo Versicherung AG (formerly known as Victoria)
• Cox v Ministry of Justice
• Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd
• Cunningham v Reading Football Club
• Cutler v Wandsworth Stadium Ltd
• Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank plc
• D Pride & Partners v Institute for Animal Health
• Daly v Liverpool Corporation
• Dalton v Angus
• Dann v Hamilton
• Darby v National Trust
• Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust
• Davidson v Chief Constable of North Wales
• Davies v Swan Motor Co
• Davies v Taylor
• Dawson v Bingley Urban District Council
• Delaney v Pickett
• Dennis v Ministry of Defence
• Dews v National Coal Board
• Dobson v Thames Water Utilities Ltd
• Dodds v Dodds
• Dodwell v Burford
• Donoghue v Folkestone Properties
• Donoghue v Stevenson
• Dooley v Cammell Laird
• Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co
• Doyle v Olby
• Drake v Foster Wheeler Ltd
• Dryden v Johnson Matthey PLC
• Dubai Aluminium v Salaam
• Dufosse v Melbry Events Ltd
• Dulieu v White
• Dunnage v Randall
• Durham v BAI (Run Off) Ltd; Employers’ Liability Insurance “Trigger” Litigation
• East Dorset District Council v Eaglebeam
• Edward Wong Finance v Johnson Stokes & Master
• Eeles v Cobham Hire Services Ltd
• Edwards v Sutton LBC
• English Heritage v Taylor
• EXE v Governors of Royal Naval School
• F v West Berkshire Health Authority
• Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner 
• Fairchild v Glenhaven
• FB (by her mother and litigation friend) v Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust
• Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery
• Ferguson v John Dawson & Partners
• Ferguson v Welsh
• Fetter v Beale
• Fitzgerald v Lane
• Fowler v Lanning
• Franklin v South Eastern Railway
• Freeman v Home Office  
• Froom v Butcher
• Galli-Atkinson v Seghal
• GB v Home Office
• Geary v JD Wetherspoon plc
• Gee v DePuy International Ltd
• General Cleaning Contractors v Christmas
• Gilbert v Stone
• Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Health Authority
• Gillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham Docks)
• Glaister v Appleby-in-Westmoreland Town Council
• Glasgow Corporation v Muir
• Goldman v Hargrave
• Goodwill v British Pregnancy Advisory Service
• Gore v Stannard
• Gorringe v Calderdale MBC
• Gorris v Scott
• Gough (an infant) v Thorns
• Grant v Secretary of State for Transport
• Gravil v Carroll
• Gray v Barr
• Gray v Thames Trains Ltd
• Greatorex v Greatorex
• Green v Fibreglass
• Green v Goddard
• Greenock Corporation v Caledonian Railway Co
• Gregg v Scott
• Groves v Lord Wimborne
• Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire Hospital NHS Trust
• Hague v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison
• Haley v London Electricity Board
• Hall & Co v Simons
• Halsall v Champion Consulting Ltd
• Harland & Wolff plc v McIntyre
• Harris v Birkenhead Corporation
• Harrison v British Railways Board
• Hartley v Mayoh
• Harvey v Plymouth County Council
• Hatton v Sutherland
• Hayden v Hayden
• Haynes v Harwood
• Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd
• Hegarty v Shine
• Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust
• Henderson v Merrett Syndicates (No 1)
• Heneghan v Manchester Dry Docks
• Herd v Weardale Steel Coke and Coal
• Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
• Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough BC
• Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmet
• Holtby v Brigham & Cowan (Hull) Ltd
• Home Office v Dorset Yacht
• Honeywill & Stein v Larkin Bros
• Hopper v Reeve
• Hotson v East Berks AHA
• Howard Marine v Ogden
• Howmet Ltd v Economy Devices Ltd
• Hughes v Lord Advocate 
• Humphrey v Aegis Defence Services
• Hunt v Severs
• Hunter v Butler
• Hunter v Canary Wharf
• Hussain v Lancaster County Council 
• Hussain v New Taplow Paper Mills
• HXA v Surrey County Council
• Ide v ATB Sales
• Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Shatwell
• Innes v Wylie
• Interlink Express Parcels v Night Trunkers
• Iqbal v Prison Officers Association
• Island Records Ltd , Ex Parte
• Islington BC v University College London Hospitals NHS Trust
• JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham
• Jackson v Murray
• Jaggard v Sawyer
• James-Bowen v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
• Janvier v Sweeney
• JD v East Berkshire Community NHS Trust
• Jebson v Ministry of Defence
• JGE v Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust
• Jobling v Associated Dairies
• Joyce v O’Brien
• Jolley v Sutton
• Jones v Deptartment of Employment
• Jones v Livox Quarries
• Kafagi v JBW Group Ltd
• Kennaway v Thompson
• Kent v Griffiths
• Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust
• Khan v Meadows
• Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester
• Kitchen v Royal Airforce Association
• Knightley v Johns
• Kuddus v Chief Constable of Leicestershire
• Kuwait Airways v Iraqi Airways (Nos 4 and 5)
• Lagden v O’Connor
• Lamb v Camden London Borough Council
• Lambert v Barratt Homes Ltd
• Lane v Holloway
• Latimer v AEC
• Lawrence v Fen Tigers Ltd
• Laws v Florinplace Ltd
• LE Jones Ltd v Portsmouth City Council
• League Against Cruel Sports v Scott
• Leakey v National Trust
• Leigh and Sillavan Ltd v Aliakmon Shipping Co Ltd, The Aliakmon
• Lemmon v Webb
• Letang v Cooper
• Letang v Ottawa Electric Railway Co
• Lim Poh Choo v Camden & Islington Area Health Authority
• Lippiatt v South Gloucestershire County Council
• Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage
• Liverpool Women’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v Ronayne
• Livingstone v Raywards Coal Co
• Logdon v DPP
• London Passenger Transport Board v Upson
• Lonhro v Shell Petroleum
• M Maguire v Harland & Wolff plc
• Maga v Birmingham Roman Catholic Archdiocese Trustees
• Maguire v Harland & Wolff plc
• Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust
• Malcolm v Broadhurst
• Mansfield v Weetabix
• Marriott v West Midlands HA
• Mattis v Pollock
• Mbasogo v Logo Ltd
• McCarthy v Marks & Spencer plc
• McCracken v Smith
• McFarlane v EE Caledonia
• McGhee v National Coal Board
• McGlinchey v General Motors (UK) Ltd
• McHugh v Okai-Koi
• McKew v Holland Hannen & Cubitts
• McKinnon Industries v Walker
• McLoughlin v O’Brian
• McWilliams v Sir William Arrol & Co Ltd
• Meering v Grahame-White Aviation
• Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Coggins and Griffith
• Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales
• Miller v Jackson
• Mitchell v Darley Main Colliery Co
• Mitchell v Glasgow City Council
• Mohamud v Morrisons
• Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board
• Moosun v HSBC
• Morris v Murray
• Morris-Garner v One Step (Support) Ltd
• Morrison Sports Ltd v Scottish Power Plc
• Mulcahy v Ministry of Defence
• Mullin v Richards
• Murphy v Brentwood District Council
• Murray v Ministry of Defence
• N v Poole Borough Council
• NA v Nottinghamshire County Council
• Nash v Sheen
• Naylor v Payling
• Nettleship v Weston
• Network Rail v Morris
• Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams
• Ng Chun Pui v Lee Chuen Tat
• Nicholas H , The
• Nichols v Marsland
• Northampton BC v Lovatt
• Nottingham Building Society v Eurodynamics Systems
• O’Rourke v Camden London Borough Council
• Ogwo v Taylor
• Owens v Brimmell
• Page v Smith
• Paris v Stepney
• Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust
• Performance Cars v Abraham
• Perry v Kendricks Transport
• Perry v Raleys Solicitors
• Phillips v Britannia Hygienic Laundry Co
• Philips v William Whiteley Ltd
• Phipps v Rochester Corporation 
• Pickett v British Rail Engineering
• Piper v JRI (Manufacturing) Ltd
• Pitts v Hunt
• Playboy Club London v Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Spa
• Pollock v Cahill
• Pollard v Tesco Stores Ltd
• Polsue & Alfieri, Limited v Rushmer
• Prendergast v Sam and Dee Ltd
• Pritchard v Co-Operative Group Ltd
• Quinland v Governor of Swaleside Prison
• R (Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
• R (Jalloh) v Home Secretary
• R v Bournewood Mental Health Trust (ex parte L)
• R v Goldstein
• R v Governor of Brockhill Prison ex parte Evans (No 2)
• R v Ireland
• R v Rimmington
• R v St George
• Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust
• Rae v Mars (UK) Ltd
• Rahman v Arearose Ltd
• Ratcliff v McConnell
• Razumas v Ministry of Justice
• Read v Coker
• Read v Lyons
• Rebecca Elaine , The
• Redland Bricks v Morris
• Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
• Renfrew Golf Club v Motocaddy Ltd
• Revill v Newbery
• Rhodes v OPO
• Richardson v London Rubber Co Ltd
• Richardson v LRC Products
• Rickards v Lothian
• Roberts v Ramsbottom
• Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
• Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Co
• Robinson v Kilvert
• Robinson v P E Jones (Contractors) Ltd
• Robinson v Post Office
• Roe v Minister of Health
• Roles v Nathan
• Rookes v Barnard
• Rose v Plenty
• Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co (Re Pleural Plaques Litigation )
• Rowlands v Chief Constable of Merseryside Police
• Rylands v Fletcher
• Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council
• Scott v London and St Katharine Docks Co
• Scott v Shepherd
• Sedleigh-Denfield v O’ Callaghan
• Shelbourne v Cancer Research
• Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Company
• Shell UK Ltd v Total UK Ltd
• Sherratt v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police
• Shtern v Cummings
• Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd
• Simaan General Contracting Co v Pilkington Glass Ltd (No 2)
• Simkiss v Rhondda Borough Council
• Slater v Clay Cross Co Ltd
• Smith v Baker
• Smith v Eric S Bush (a firm)
• Smith v Finch
• Smith v Giddy
• Smith v Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
• Smith v Leech Brain
• Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd
• Smith v MOD
• Smith v Stages
• Smith v Stone
• Smoldon v Whitworth bla
• South Australia Asset Management Corp v York Montague Ltd (‘SAAMCO’)
• Spartan Steel & Alloys v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd
• Spearman v Royal United Bath Hospitals NHS Trust
• Spencer v Wincanton Holdings
• Spicer v Smee
• Spittle v Bunney
• Spring v Guardian Assurance
• St George v Home Office
• St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust v S
• St Helen’s Smelting v Tipping
• Stanley v Saddique
• Stansbie v Troman
• Stapley v Gypsum Mines
• Steel v NRAM Ltd
• Stephens v Myers
• Stone v Taffe
• Sturges v Bridgman
• Sunbolf v Alford
• Surtees v Kingston upon Thames Borough Council
• Sutradhar v National Environment Research Council
• Swain v Puri 
• Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police Force
• SXH v Crown Prosecution Service
• T (Adult: refusal of medical treatment) , Re
• Tacagni v Cornwall County Council
• Tanner v Sarkar
• Taylor v A Novo (UK) Ltd
• Taylor v Somerset
• Thompson-Schwab v Costaki
• Thompson v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
• Thompson v Smiths Shiprepairers (North Shields) Ltd
• Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council
• Transco v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
• Tremain v Pike
• Tuberville v Savage
• Vacwell Engineering Co v BDH Chemicals Ltd
• Vaickuviene and others v J Sainsbury plc
• Van Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire
• Viasystems v Thermal Transfer
• Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police
• Vernon Knight Associates v Cornwall Council
• W v Home Office
• Wagon Mound (no 1)
• Wagon Mound (No 2)
• Wainwright v Home Office
• Walker v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
• Walker v Northumberland County Council
• Ward v Hertfordshire County Council
• Wattleworth v Goodwood Road Racing Co
• Watt v Herts CC
• Werb v Solent NHS Trust
• West Bromwich Albion v El-Safty
• West Sussex County Council v Pierce
• Westwood v Post Office
• Wheat v E Lacon
• Wheeler v Copas
• Wheeler v JJ Saunders Ltd
• Whipps Cross University NHS Trust v Iqbal
• White v Blackmore
• White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire
• White v City of St Albans
• White v Jones
• White v Taylor
• Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets
• Wiffin v Kincard
• Wilkes v DePuy International Ltd
• Wilkinson v Downton
• Williams v Bermuda Hospitals Board
• Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd
• Williams v Network Rail
• Williams v Welsh Ambulance Service NHS Trust
• Wilsher v Essex AHA
• Willson v Ministry of Defence
• Wilson v Pringle
• Wm Morrison Supermarkets v Various Claimants
• Wong v Parkside Health NHS Trust
• Woodland v Essex County Council
• Woodward v Mayor of Hastings
• Wooldridge v Sumner
• Woollins v British Celanese
• Worsley v Tambrands Ltd
• X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council
• Yah v Medway NHS Foundation Trust
• Yuen Kun Yeu v Attorney General for Hong Kong

Share this:

Torts: Cases, Principles, and Institutions

(0 reviews)

John Fabian Witt, Yale Law School

Copyright Year: 2016

Publisher: CALI's eLangdell® Press

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Table of Contents

• Chapter 1. An Introduction To American Tort Law
• Chapter 2. Intentionally Inflicted Physical Harms
• Chapter 3. Strict Liability And Negligence: History And Introduction
• Chapter 4. The Negligence Standard
• Chapter 5. Plaintiffs' Conduct
• Chapter 6. Causation
• Chapter 7. Proximate (“Legal”) Cause
• Chapter 8. The Duty Problem
• Chapter 9. Modern Non-Fault Liability?
• Chapter 10. Damages

Ancillary Material

• Ancillary materials are available by contacting the author or publisher .

About the Book

This is the Fifth Edition of Torts: Cases, Principles, and Institutions, a casebook for a one-semester torts course that carves out a distinctive niche in the field by focusing on the institutions and sociology of American tort law. The book retains many of the familiar features of the traditional casebook, including many of the classic cases. Like the best casebooks, it seeks to survey the theoretical principles underlying those cases. But it aims to supplement the cases and principles with editorial notes that focus students’ attention on the institutional features of our tort system, including features such as the pervasiveness of settlements, the significance of the market, the role of the plaintiff's bar, the importance of private insurance, the contingency fee, and the jury. These institutional arrangements are what make American tort law distinctive. They are how the substantive doctrines of tort law are translated into the practice of torts lawyers. And they are sociologically fascinating in their own right.

TCPI integrates the institutional materials into the cases and notes rather than segregate them into separate sections of their own. It does so because its aim is not to teach the details of any one institution, such as the mechanics of the law of subrogation or workers’ compensation. Few one-semester torts classes can take up so much material. Instead, the book integrates the institutional material into the main text to draw general lessons about the massive, sprawling systems of private administration that American law has created under the umbrella of our torts system.

About the Contributors

John Fabian Witt is Allen H. Duffy Class of 1960 Professor of Law at Yale Law School. His most recent book Lincoln’s Code: The Laws of War in American History was awarded the American Bar Association's Silver Gavel Award, was selected for the 2013 Bancroft Prize in American history, was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize, and was a New York Times Notable Book for 2012. He has taught torts for fifteen years at Yale, Columbia, and Harvard.

Professor Witt’s previous writings includes the prizewinning book, The Accidental Republic: Crippled Workingmen, Destitute Widows, and the Remaking of American Law (Harvard University Press, 2004) and Patriots and Cosmopolitans: Hidden Histories of American Law (Harvard University Press, 2007). He has authored articles in the American Historical Review, the Columbia Law Review, the Harvard Law Review, the Yale Law Journal, and other scholarly journals. He has written for the New York Times, Slate, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. In 2010 he was awarded a John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Fellowship for his project on the laws of war in American history. Professor Witt is a graduate of Yale Law School and Yale College and he holds a Ph.D. in history from Yale. He is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He served as law clerk to Judge Pierre N. Leval on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Contribute to this Page

Modern Tort Law: Preventing Harms, Not Recognizing Wrongs

• Catherine M. Sharkey
• Thoroughly Modern Tort Theory  by  Benjamin C. Zipursky , John C.P. Goldberg
• February 2021
• See full issue

Introduction

When the U.S. Supreme Court faced a novel tort law issue in 2019 in Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries 1 — namely, whether the manufacturer of a “bare-metal” product such as a turbine, blower, or pump has a duty to warn of dangers that arise from the later incorporation of asbestos-laden parts into the product 2 — the Justices turned to first principles from tort theory. In a 6–3 decision, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, drawing heavily from Judge Guido Calabresi’s “cheapest cost avoider” theory, 3 held for the majority that the bare-metal product manufacturer did have a duty to warn, reasoning that “the product manufacturer will often be in a better position than the parts manufacturer to warn of the danger from the integrated product.” 4

This type of reasoning on the part of the majority is a main target of Professors John Goldberg and Benjamin Zipursky (hereinafter GZ) in their new book, Recognizing Wrongs . Such bald instrumentalism, they argue, reflects the worst kind of “social engineering” (p. 215) 5 on the part of judges. 6 This “bad tort theory” (p. 318) is GZ’s call to arms.

GZ might instead endorse the DeVries dissent’s view that “the traditional common law rule still makes the most sense today.” 7 But herein lies the rub. Justice Neil Gorsuch, for the dissent, likewise built his analysis around Judge Calabresi’s cheapest-cost-avoider theory, but reasoned that the subsequent part manufacturer “is in the best position to understand and warn users about its risks; in the language of law and economics, those who make products are generally the least-cost avoiders of their risks.” 8

Thus, while the majority and dissent disagreed as to which party — the bare-metal product manufacturer or the subsequent parts manufacturer — was in fact the cheapest cost avoider, they were unanimous in using the lens of law-and-economics, incentive-driven tort theory.

The law and economics–inspired view of tort law is ascendant, not only in the legal academy but also in the decisions of influential state and federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. 9 So, at the outset, GZ face an uphill battle, given that their “civil recourse theory” self-consciously attempts to recalibrate tort theory as an apt description of how judges reason: “[W]e think recognizing wrongs is what courts do ” (p. 257). 10 Aspirationally, they proclaim that “[e]xponents of the view that tort law is about wrongs, duties, and rights are not the ones who should be on the defensive” (p. 108). But, notwithstanding their protestation to the contrary, GZ adopt a fairly defensive tone throughout, recognizing (time and again) that their ideas in tort go “against the grain” (pp. 52, 68); alas, perhaps a more apt metaphor would be “against the tide.”

Should they necessarily bemoan the current state of affairs? They lament that “the lawyerly capacity to recognize wrongs has atrophied” (p. 290). But might not modern tort law theory enable judges not only to recognize wrongs, but altogether prevent them? My claim in this Review is that economic deterrence–based “cheapest cost avoider” reasoning permeates judicial decisions, especially in the realm of products liability; moreover, this is cause for celebration given its ability to handle the most urgent modern torts issues concerning the interface between tort and federal regulation and widespread societal harms.

Part I reframes Recognizing Wrongs as, first and foremost, a sustained critique of the law-and-economics, deterrence-focused view of tort law, rather than (as GZ set forth) the affirmative case for the “wrongs and redress” account of tort law. “Cheapest cost avoider” tort theory (as my chosen stand-in for instrumentalist, deterrence-based theories) plays the role of an antagonist, against which GZ construct their theory of wrongs and redress. Part II inverts the role of “cheapest cost avoider” as the protagonist of some of the most significant developments in contemporary tort law, focusing on its central role in the rise of strict products liability in tort and especially its extension to cover bystanders. Part III argues that law-and-economics, deterrence-based theory holds the most promise for judges facing two primary challenges of modern tort law: (1) containing risks at the cutting edge of the regulatory state and (2) addressing widespread harms.

* Crystal Eastman Professor of Law, New York University School of Law. I was honored to take part in a book launch/festschrift for Professors Goldberg and Zipursky at Fordham Law School on February 5, 2020. I celebrated them as generous colleagues and exemplary scholars — and herein offer what I hope is considered an even higher form of praise, namely, my sharpest critique. Thanks also to fellow panelist Professor Jed Shugerman for his comments and perspective and to Stephen Profeta (NYU 2021) for superb research assistance.

^ 139 S. Ct. 986 (2019).

^ Id . at 992.

^ See Guido Calabresi, The Costs of Accidents 155 (1970) [hereinafter Calabresi, Costs ] (“[T]he search for the cheapest avoider of accident costs is the search for that activity which has most readily available a substitute activity that is substantially safer. It is a search for that degree of alteration or reduction in activities which will bring about primary accident cost reduction most cheaply.”); see also Guido Calabresi, Concerning Cause and the Law of Torts: An Essay for Harry Kalven, Jr ., 43 U. Chi. L. Rev . 69, 84 (1975) (“[T]he chosen loss bearer must have better knowledge of the risks involved and of ways of avoiding them than alternate bearers; he must be in a better position to use that knowledge efficiently to choose the cheaper alternative; and finally he must be better placed to induce modifications in the behavior of others where such modification is the cheapest way to reduce the sum of accident and safety costs. The party who in practice best combines these not infrequently divergent attributes is the ‘cheapest cost avoider’ of an accident who would be held responsible for the accident costs under the market deterrence standard.”).

^ DeVries , 139 S. Ct. at 994 (citing Calabresi, Costs, supra note 3, at 311–18). Justice Kavanaugh elaborated further: The product manufacturer knows the nature of the ultimate integrated product and is typically more aware of the risks associated with that integrated product. By contrast, a parts manufacturer may be aware only that its part could conceivably be used in any number of ways in any number of products. A parts manufacturer may not always be aware that its part will be used in a way that poses a risk of danger. Id.

^ The authors quote William L. Prosser, Handbook of the Law of Torts 15 (1941).

^ See also p. 208 (“[T]he wrongs recognized by tort law are, in their substance, drawn from everyday life rather than constructed de novo by judges in aid of some sort of social engineering project.”).

^ 139 S. Ct. at 997 (Gorsuch, J., dissenting).

^ Id . According to Justice Gorsuch, the duty to warn should be placed not on the bare-metal product manufacturer but instead on the subsequent parts manufacturer to “force it to internalize the full cost of any injuries caused by inadequate warnings.” Id . (citing Steven Shavell, Economic Analysis of Accident Law 17 (1987); Calabresi, Costs, supra note 3, at 135 & n.1; Italia Societa per Azioni di Navigazione v. Or. Stevedoring Co., 376 U.S. 315, 324 (1964)). Moreover, assigning liability to the bare-metal manufacturer “dilute[s] the incentive” of the product manufacturer. Id .

^ Emphasis has been added and emphasis in original has been omitted.

• Law and Economics

February 10, 2021

More from this Issue

In the best interests of the child asylum-seeker: a threat to family unity, tribes can prohibit abortions in indian country, interpreting congress’s creation of alternative remedial schemes.

• Law of torts – Complete Reading Material
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – September 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 2 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 3 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 5 October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 2 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 3 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 – December 2019
• Sign in / Join

• Law of Torts

Top 10 tort law cases

This article is written by Neha Dahiya, a law student at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Law University, Sonipat. This article includes the facts, issues, the decision held, and tort law principles used in the top 10 tort law cases. 

It has been published by Rachit Garg.

Table of Contents

Introduction 

Tort is basically a civil wrong, other than a breach of contract, whose remedy includes unliquidated damages for the injury caused. It is an act or omission that causes harm to another person, breaching his legal rights, and giving rise to liability. The primary aim of the tort law is to remedy the harm caused by way of compensation and deter others from doing the same. The injured party may bring a civil suit against the defendant to obtain an injunction or recover damages in the form of monetary compensation. The common forms of torts include trespass, assault, battery, negligence, nuisance, defamation, etc. The following are some prominent case laws that have shaped the development of tort law. 

Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)

Principle used: Doctrine of negligence and Neighbour principle

Facts of the case

On 26 August 1928, the appellant , Mrs. Mary M’Alister, or Donoghue, consumed the contents of a ginger beer bottle bought by her friend. The bottle was bought from Wellmeadow Café and manufactured by the respondent. The respondent, once she had consumed a major portion of the beer, poured the rest of the contents into a glass. It was then discovered that the beer had decomposed remains of a snail in it. It remained undetected on the account of the beer bottle being opaque. Consequently, the appellant suffered from shock and a serious case of gastroenteritis. Hence, the appellant filed a case against the respondent, David Stevenson, who was the manufacturer of ginger beer bottles. Initially, she filed a case for the breach of warranty of a contract. But this contention was rejected as she was not a party to any contract with the manufacturer. Thus, an appeal was filed to the House of Lords. She claimed damages for the injuries sustained by her. 

Issues raised in the case

• Whether the manufacturer had any responsibility towards the appellant in the absence of any contractual relationship between the two?
• It was an established fact until then that in the absence of any prior contract, the manufacturer owed no duty of care towards the consumer except in a few cases. The first exception was when the product was inherently dangerous and the manufacturer failed to warn the consumer. The second case was when the product was dangerous as a result of any defect and the defect was concealed by the manufacturer from the consumer, which was considered a case of fraud. Thus, the second issue was whether the ginger beer could fall into these categories so as to give the appellant a cause of action.

Judgement of the Court

• The judgement was delivered in favour of the appellant. It was delivered by a majority of 3-2 with the dissenting judgement given by Lord Buckmaster and Lord Tomlin. Jurisprudentially, this was a landmark judgement that introduced three new principles related to the matter at hand.       
• To begin with, negligence was established as a tort, whose breach could invite legal action. It was laid down that if the plaintiff has suffered injuries or loss of property owing to the respondent’s negligence to take due care, the plaintiff is justified in bringing a civil action against the respondent. The respondent in such cases is liable to pay the damages with due accordance given to the nature and extent of injuries or loss suffered. Previously, such an action could only be taken when there was a prior contractual agreement between the parties. The present case was a stark shift from this position as the appellant was allowed to extract damages in absence of any such contract, making the manufacturer liable for the injuries sustained as a result of consumption of his product. 
• The second principle laid down the idea that the manufacturers could be held liable for the injuries caused by their products. It was observed that the manufacturers had a duty of care towards the consumers who used their end products. Reasonable care must be taken by the manufacturers and those who breached this condition should be held liable for serving defective products to the consumers which might be harmful to them. 

The neighbour principle 

The famous ‘Neighbour Principle’ was also devised in Donoghue v. Stevenson . It was with this principal’s aid that the appellant was compensated for the injuries she sustained, despite being a third party to the original contract. Under the principle, the boundaries of the tort of negligence were expanded beyond the tortfeasor and the immediate party. Its ambit was widened to include all those people who might be affected by the negligence. In this case, Donoghue was not a party to the contract and had received the bottle as a gift from her friend. This impeded her claim for damages. But as per this principle, she was designated the title of a ‘neighbour’ who was affected by the negligence committed and hence was entitled to the damages. Lord Atkin defined the term ‘neighbour’ in legal parlance as anyone who would be closely and directly affected by one’s actions and proper care must be taken to avoid causing any injury or loss. 

Rylands v. Fletcher (1868)

  Principle used: Strict liability 

In this case , the defendants, who were the mill owners in the coal mining area of Lancashire, decided to construct a reservoir on their land. When the reservoir was constructed and water was filled, the water broke through the filled-in shaft of an abandoned coal mine. It flooded the connected passageways and the plaintiff’s active mine nearby was destroyed. When the matter went to the trial court, the court exonerated the defendants on the ground that they were unaware of the abandoned mine shaft while constructing the reservoir. Hence, they could not be said to be negligent. 

Later on, the plaintiffs filed an appeal and the Exchequer Chamber overruled the trial court’s decree, imposing strict liability on the defendants. But the problem was that the case could be fitted into any of the existing torts in order to punish the defendants. There was no trespass as the flooding was not direct. Nor was it a nuisance as there was nothing offensive or annoying here that was recurring.

Finally, the matter reached the House of Lords when the defendants appealed. 

• Whether the defendants can be held liable for indirectly flooding the plaintiff’s active mines, without actually knowing it?
• If the defendants are liable, then for which tort could they be prosecuted?

The House of Lords affirmed the judgement of the court of the Exchequer Chamber and held the defendants to be liable. The court also established the doctrine of ‘strict liability’, under which the defendants were held liable. 

The doctrine of strict liability 

The requirements for the application of the doctrine of strict liability, as laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher , are as follows:

• The defendant must have brought something on his land- This requirement mandates that in order to be liable under strict liability, there must be something that is brought on the land from outside. It should not be something that grows or occurs naturally on the land. It must be something that is artificially accumulated by the defendant. In the present case, it was the large quantity of water that was artificially accumulated by the defendants in the reservoir on their land. 
• Non-natural use of land- The second requirement is that it must involve a non-natural use of the land. In this case, using the land for storing large quantities of water in a reservoir amounted to a non-natural use. 
• Likely to do mischief- The thing that is brought on the land from outside for the non-natural use of the land must be likely to do mischief on escape. In this case, the large quantity of water had the potential to cause a lot of destruction, if it escaped by any means. 
• It must escape- The substance brought on land likely to do mischief must escape from the land. Here, the water from the reservoir on the defendant’s land escaped and flooded the plaintiff’s mines.
• Foreseeability- The harm caused by the escape of that dangerous substance must be foreseeable. 

Defences to the doctrine of strict liability 

Subsequent to the development of this doctrine, a number of defences have also been developed to the rule of strict liability. Some of them are the following:

• Consent- In case it is found the claimant had given express or implied consent to the presence of that dangerous substance likely to escape and cause mischief, it is implied that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant and he would not be held liable. 
• Act of third party- If the escape can be attributed to the act or interference of a third party, the defendant shall not be held liable. 
• Statutory authority- A person can escape strict liability if a statute requires a person or body to carry out a particular activity. 
• Act of god-   An act of god is an unnatural event that could not be predicted by human foresight like strong earthquakes, exceptionally heavy rain, tsunami, etc. 
• Claimant’s fault- If the escape can be attributed to the claimant’s fault, the defendant shall not be held liable. Additionally, there may be contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. 

Gloucester Grammar School case (1410)

Principle used: Damnum sine injuria 

The defendant, in this case, was a school teacher at the Gloucester Grammar School. Due to some reason, he decided to quit his job and start his own school. He opened his own school in the vicinity of the Gloucester Grammar School and kept the fee at 12 pence to entice students to come to his school at such a low fee. The fee charged by his previous school was 40 pence. He was also very popular among the students. Because of these reasons, many students left Gloucester and joined his school. This caused a lot of monetary damage to Gloucester Grammar School. Hence, the owner of Gloucester Grammar School filed a suit against the defendant for the recovery of the financial loss he had to incur because of him. He alleged that the defendant opened his school with a malicious motive to cause damage to the Gloucester Grammar School. He sought compensation for the damages. 

Issues involved in the case

• Does the plaintiff have the right to seek compensation for the financial losses incurred due to the opening of a competitive business in his vicinity?
• Does the case fall under ‘damnum sine injuria’ ? 
• Is the defendant actually liable?

Judgement of the Court 

The Court held that the defendant was not liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damage caused and the Gloucester Grammar School had no cause against the defendant. In this particular case, even though the plaintiff had suffered pecuniary losses, there was no injury caused to his legal rights. The plaintiff contended that the defendant’s motive for opening a new school with less fee was to cause harm to the plaintiff and was morally wrong. But legally, the defendant did nothing wrong. Not all moral, social, and religious wrongs are covered under legal wrongs. There was no tort that was committed. The defendant had the right to pursue any profession and he did not injure the legal rights of the defendant in doing the same. The children were at liberty to choose which school they wanted to go to. They chose the defendant’s school because of his sincerity towards his work which made him famous among his pupils and the affordable fee. The court cannot compel the defendant to close down his school or pay compensation to the plaintiff. Thus, no civil wrong was committed. The case falls under ‘damnum sine injuria’ , i.e. there may be financial damage caused to the plaintiff but there was no legal injury. Therefore, the defendant was not liable.  

Vaughan v. Taff Vale Railway Company (1858) 

Principle used: Statutory exemption from the doctrine of negligence 

In this case , the plaintiff was the owner of a wood or plantation adjoining the embankment of the railway. On 14 March 1856, the plaintiff’s woods were found burnt. The cause of the fire was attributed to the sparks from the defendant’s locomotive engines while they were in the normal course of their working. It was also shown that on several occasions previously as well the wood had been set on fire and the Company had even paid the damages. The plaintiff again sought compensation for the burnt wood from the defendant and hence filed this suit. The defendant claimed that they had taken all the necessary precautions that were practicable to prevent such an accident and make the locomotives safe like a cap had been put on its chimney, the ashpan had been secured and it was operated at the slowest pace. Even the banks of the railway were covered with inflammable grass. The wood was also full of small dry branches that are combustible in nature.  

Issue involved in the case

• Can the defendant be held liable for negligence despite taking all the necessary precautions?

In the first instance, the company was held liable for negligence. It was observed that the plaintiff had suffered losses because of the fire caused by the sparks from the locomotives. The defence that the plaintiff had allowed his wood to become vulnerable to catching fire, neglecting to clear away the dry grass and small branches was not given to the defendants. 

However, this decision was overruled. 

It was finally held that it was the statutory authority that had authorised the defendant to carry out their operations. Thus, they had done nothing against the statute to be held liable. Furthermore, all the necessary precautions were taken, therefore, the defendant cannot be held liable for negligence as the act was authorised by the statute. 

Kasturi Ralia Ram v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (1964)

Principle used: Rex non potest peccare  

In this case , the plaintiff, Kasturi Ralia Ram was a partner in a firm dealing with the sale of jewellery, based in Amritsar. He had arrived in Meerut with the aim of selling some gold and silver. In Meerut, he was taken into custody by three police officers who suspected him of having possession of the stolen property. He was searched and taken to the Kotwali Police Station. Around 103 tolas 6 mashas and 1 ratti of gold and 2 maunds and 6 ½ seers of silver were confiscated from him. They were kept in the police malkhana. After some time when Kasturi Lal was released on bail, the silver was returned to him but not the gold. He made several requests and demands for his gold but the police officers did not return it. Hence, he filed a suit either for the recovery of gold or the amount equal to the value of the gold. The respondent claimed a head constable of the malkahana named Mohammad Amir had misappropriated the gold and fled away to Pakistan. The police had tried to trace him but were unsuccessful. Thus, the respondents claimed that it was not their fault. 

• Can the police be held guilty of negligence for not taking proper care of Kasturi Ram’s gold?
• Is the respondent liable to compensate Kasturi Ram for his loss due to the negligence of the public servants appointed by the State?
• Can the defence of discharging sovereign functions be given to the respondent against the charge of negligence?

The Supreme  Court of India held that the defendant was not liable to compensate the plaintiff. It granted the defence of functions discharged under sovereign power to the respondent. It was observed that the powers to arrest, search and seize property falls under the sovereign powers conferred on the specified officers by the statute. These powers fall under the category of sovereign powers and hence provide immunity to the officers in question. Even though the employees of the State had committed a negligent act during the course of employment, they could claim immunity under sovereign power. The decision was based on the maxim ‘rex non-potest peccare’ which translates to ‘the king can do no wrong’. 

Bhim Singh v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir (1985)

Principle used: Injuria sine damnum and false imprisonment

Facts 

The petitioner, in this case , Shri Bhim Singh was a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. An FIR was registered against him under Section 153-A of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 at the Police Station Pacca Danga. The ground of the FIR was an inflammatory speech delivered at a public meeting. He was arrested and detained by the police. Also, he was deliberately prevented from attending the session of the Assembly. As a result of a habeas corpus writ filed by his wife, Bhim Singh was released on bail. Subsequently, there was a voting session in the Assembly that he was not allowed to attend and hence, he could not vote. Even though the person whom he wanted to vote for won, he claimed that his right to vote was infringed. 

• Whether the arrest and detention of Bhim Singh was illegal and amounted to false imprisonment?
• Whether the detention amounts to an infringement of the petitioner’s constitutional rights?
• Whether the petitioner is entitled to exemplary compensation?
• The Supreme Court of India concluded that the petitioner was falsely imprisoned. In fact, the remand orders were obtained from the Executive Magistrate of First Class and the Sub-Judge without producing the petitioner before them. The police officers acted deliberately and had mala fide intentions. 
• It was held that the false imprisonment and non-production of the petitioner before the magistrate were tantamount to infringement of the petitioner’s constitutional rights. He was completely deprived of personal liberty, he had the knowledge of the restraint, there was the presence of malicious intent on part of the police officers and it was an unlawful act. All the ingredients of false imprisonment were satisfied in the present case. Also, not producing him in front of the magistrate violated Section 56 and Section 76 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 .
• The main principle applied here was that of ‘injuria sine damnum’, i.e. injury without damage. In this case, Bhim Singh was prevented from attending the Assembly session and casting his vote. Even though there was no damage caused as the candidate in whose favour he wanted to vote had won, there was an infringement of his legal right. Thus, without any actual harm suffered by the petitioner, he could bring an action just because his constitutional right had been violated.
• The Court also recognised that when a person is maliciously arrested and imprisoned, it is a complete invasion of his constitutional and legal rights. Restraining his personal liberty violated Articles 20 and 21 of the Indian Constitution . Justice is not served by merely setting that person free. Thus, it is completely justified to award monetary compensation in such cases. As a result, the State of Jammu and Kashmir was directed by the honourable Supreme Court to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 to the petitioner Bhim Singh as monetary compensation from the date of the judgement within two months. 

Ashby v. White (1703)

Principle used: Injuria sine damnum 

This is an eighteenth-century voting rights case , also known as the Aylesbury election case. In this case, the plaintiff Mr. Ashby was denied to vote by the returning officer Mr. White, in the parliamentary elections. He unlawfully deprived him of his right to vote on the ground that he was not a permanent resident. Even though the candidate in whose favour he wanted to cast his vote won, Mr. Ashby claimed that his legal right to vote was infringed. This case sparked a national controversy and even invited a parliamentary debate. The defendant claimed that there was no actual loss incurred by Mr. Ashby by not voting. The plaintiff sought compensation for the violation of his legal right.

• Whether the plaintiff can seek compensation for the violation of his legal right without any actual damage caused?

The Court passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff. It applied the principle of ‘injuria sine damnum’ , which translates to ‘injury without damage ’. It implies that the law recognises only legal injuries and not mere damages. Whenever an action causes a legal injury, i.e. someone’s legal right is violated, the victim deserves compensation, even when there is no actual damage caused. Thus, in the present case, even when the candidate to whom the plaintiff wanted to cast his vote had won, his legal right to vote was violated when he was wrongfully denied from casting his vote. Therefore, he deserves compensation. Chief Justice Holt said, “ Any injury imports harm even if it does not cost the party one farthing. In the case of damage, not only pecuniary but also injury, the damage is imported if a person is hampered in his or her rights.”

Hall v. Brooklands auto racing club (1933)

Principle used: Volenti non fit injuria 

 Facts of the case

This case is associated with an accident related to the racing track for motor cars. The track was oval in shape and circumference of approximately two miles or more. It also had an over 100 feet wide long straight stretch called the finishing straight. It was bounded by a cement kerb on its outer side. The spectators were allowed to watch the race from a safe distance behind the railings behind the cement kerb, which was 4 feet 6 inches high. However, many people preferred to stand alone and outside the railing. During the race, two cars were fast approaching a sharp bend to the left. In the competition to go ahead, one of the cars touched the offside of another car. Because of this, the car went flying in the air over the curb and fell into the railing. The accident caused the death of spectators and caused injuries to several others. One of the injured spectators brought a suit of negligence against the owners of the racing track as they had invited people to watch the race under such unsafe conditions. 

• Were the owners of the racing track negligent in ensuring the safety of the spectators?
• Can the defendants be held liable for the damage caused to the spectators due to the accident?

The Court held that it is clearly the responsibility of the defendants to make the track safe for the spectators from all the foreseeable dangers. However, they were not responsible for the dangers that could not be reasonably predicted or to which danger the spectator had given his consent, as it is innate in the nature of the activity. For example, while buying tickets for a cricket or football match, the spectator consents to the inherent risk in the activity like getting hit by the ball. In this case, the area for the spectators was completely secured and safe but they are likely to get in danger when going too close to the track, i.e. near the railings.   Additionally, as no such accident had ever occurred in the past, the accident was not foreseeable. Therefore, the defendants were not liable because of the following two primary reasons:

• The accident was not foreseeable.
• The spectators had given their implied consent to the dangers inherent to the nature of the activity while buying tickets.

Dr. Ram Baj Singh v. Babulal (1981)

Principle used: Nuisance 

This case was between a medical practitioner and the defendant owning a brick grinding machine. The plaintiff has built a consulting chamber before the brick grinding machine was erected by the defendants. The plaintiff claimed that the brick grinding machine was generating dust which polluted the environment causing inconvenience to the plaintiff and his patients who came to his chamber. It was also alleged that the said machine was installed by the defendants without any licence or permission from the Municipal Board. On the other hand, the defendant claimed that the bricks were moistened before grinding and hence caused no pollution. The machine did not even produce any noise and thus, was not a source of any public or private nuisance. 

• Was the defendant liable for nuisance?

The Allahabad High Court held the defendant liable for nuisance. It laid down two important pillars of nuisance. 

Tort of nuisance 

The two pillars of nuisance, as established by the High Court in Ram Raj Singh v. Babu Lal , are the following:

• Special damage- The Court held that the dust emanating from the crushing of the bricks was a public hazard. It was bound to cause injury to public health. The dust was in sufficient quantity, as could be found from the thin red coating visible in the clothes of persons visiting the chamber. Thus, the brick grinding machine was causing special damage to the plaintiff.
• Substantial injury- Injury is said to be substantial when assessed from the point of view of a reasonable person belonging to society. The susceptibilities of a hypersensitive person are not taken into consideration. In the present case, there was a substantial injury caused to the plaintiff and his visiting patients due to the dust from the grinding machine. 

As the above two requisites were fulfilled in the present case and any act that could reasonably cause injury, discomfort, or annoyance to a person can fall under private nuisance, the defendant was held liable on the charge of private nuisance.

Ram Ghulam and Anr. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (1949) 

Principle used: Defence of sovereign power to the tort of negligence 

The plaintiff’s ornaments were stolen in the present case. They were ultimately recovered from another house. Under the powers conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure, the police searched and seized those ornaments from that place. Subsequently, they were kept in the Collectorate Malkhana, from where they were again stolen. The plaintiff applied to the Magistrate for the restoration of his ornaments but was unsuccessful. It was dismissed on the ground that the government was not liable to compensate. The plaintiff alleged that his ornaments were stolen due to the negligence of the State’s servants and hence the state was liable to compensate him.

• Was the government liable as a bailee of the plaintiff’s ornaments that were stolen due to its servants’ negligence?
• Was the government liable to indemnify or compensate the plaintiff for his goods?
• The Allahabad High Court held that the relationship between the government and the plaintiff was not that of the bailee and bailor. Such a relationship arises from contractual obligations and no such contract was entered into by the two. 
• The Court applied the maxim ‘respondeat superior’ to hold that the State was not responsible to compensate the plaintiff for his stolen goods. According to this, the master, i.e. the government was not responsible for the acts of its servant, when such acts are done while discharging the duty imposed by law. The police were acting under the law while confiscating the ornaments and hence were not liable when in the course of the act the ornaments were stolen. 

 Tort law does not have an established statute. It has emerged from the decisions given in different case laws. The judgments given formulate new principles and modify the already existing principles. The frequently used principle of strict liability has originated from the case of Rylands v. Fletche r and the Neighbour principle has also originated from Donoghue v. Stevenson. Thus, even today it is dynamic and contains the scope of expansion as new cases come forward every day. 

References 

• https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tort  
• https://www.lawnn.com/top-10-landmark-judgements-law-torts/  
• https://professionalnegligenceclaimsolicitors.co.uk/landmark-famous-uk-tort-cases-advice/  
• https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_liability  
• https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100227619  

Students of  Lawsikho courses  regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on  Instagram  and subscribe to our  YouTube  channel for more amazing legal content.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Mahboob sahab vs. syed ismail and ors (1995) , moro vishvanath vs. ganesh vithal (1873), brijendra singh vs. state of m.p. and anr. (2008)   , leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

3-Day Bootcamp (LIVE only) on

How you can use labour law skills to go from HR manager to business leader

Register now

Thank you for registering with us, you made the right choice.

Congratulations! You have successfully registered for the webinar. See you there.

Back to Course Catalog

Fall 2022 • Course

Exam Type: In Class

This survey course introduces the major areas of tort law, including intentional harms, negligence, strict liability, and modern products liability. In addition to the black-letter doctrine, students will learn how to read a legal case closely, reason by analogy, and make legal arguments. The course will also expose students to the major theories of tort law (compensation, deterrence, corrective justice), as well as broader legal meta-debates such as rules vs. standards, subjective vs. objective, differences of kind vs. differences of degree, and the role of judge vs. jury.

Definition of Tort Law

What is tort law.

The types of damages that may be awarded by the court for civil wrongs, called “tortious conduct,” of an individual or entity include:

Tort Liability

Types of tort.

Additional and separate specific torts include:

Intentional Torts

Raymond stops by the local bar for a few drinks before he heads home after work. After drinking four cocktails, Raymond gets into his car, and runs a stop sign, crashing into another car, seriously injuring its occupants. Although Raymond might argue that he didn’t know he would hurt someone, it is expected that Raymond should have known that driving under the influence is likely to cause harm, or to kill another person.

Negligent Torts

Strict liability torts.

Strict liability refers to the concept of imposing liability on a defendant, usually a manufacturer, without proving negligent fault, or intent to cause harm. The purpose of strict liability torts is to regulate activities that are acknowledged as being necessary and useful to society, but which pose an abnormally high risk of danger to the public.

Such activities may include transportation and storage of hazardous substances, blasting, and keeping certain wild animals in captivity. The possibility of civil lawsuits under strict liability torts keeps individuals or corporations undertaking such dangerous acts diligent in taking every possible precaution to keep the public safe.

Suing Under Strict Liability Tort

Tort examples:

Federal Tort Claims Act

Filing a claim under the ftca, tort reform, tort law and tort reform under scrutiny, liebeck v. mcdonald’s restaurants.

In 1992, 79-year old Stella Liebeck spilled a cup of McDonald’s coffee in her lap, sustaining third degree burns to both legs. The severity of the full-thickness burns required skin grafts. This involved stripping skin from other areas of Liebeck’s body to graft onto the burned areas which were no longer able to grow skin on their own, leaving her with even more wounds to heal. When McDonald’s denied Liebeck’s request to pay her medical bills, she filed a civil lawsuit.

Related Legal Terms and Issues

• Help and information
• Comparative
• Constitutional & Administrative
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Environment
• Equity & Trusts
• Competition
• Human Rights & Immigration
• Intellectual Property
• International Criminal
• International Environmental
• Private International
• Public International
• IT & Communications
• Jurisprudence & Philosophy of Law
• Legal Practice Course
• English Legal System (ELS)
• Legal Skills & Practice
• Medical & Healthcare
• Study & Revision
• Business and Government
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Tort Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (5th edn)  

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. Tort Law: Text, Cases, and Materials combines incisive commentary with carefully selected extracts from primary and secondary materials to provide a balance of support and encouragement. This volume starts by introducing the fundamental principles of the subject before moving on to discuss more challenging issues, hoping to encourage a full understanding of the subject and an appreciation of the more complex debates surrounding the law of tort. The text starts by providing an overview. Various torts are then arranged along a spectrum from intentional torts, through negligence, to stricter liabilities. Also considered are issues relating to damages, compensation, limitation, and vicarious liability. After introducing intentional torts, the book looks at the tort of negligence. Chapters also cover nuisance and duties relating to land and defamation and privacy. Finally, stricter liabilities are examined such as product liability.

You do not currently have access to this chapter

Please sign in to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

• Dedication  
• New to This Edition  
• Acknowledgements  
• Table of Cases  
• Table of Statutes  
• Table of European Material  
• Table of Treaties and Conventions  
• 1. Introduction: The Shape of Tort Law Today  
• 2. Torts of Intention  
• 3. The Standard of Care in Negligence  
• 4. The Duty of Care: Introduction and Development  
• 5. Duty of Care: Applications  
• 6. Causation, Remoteness, and Scope of Duty: Connection to the Damage  
• 7. Defences to Negligence  
• 8. Limitation and Contribution  
• 9. Damages, Compensation, and Responsibility  
• 10. Vicarious Liability and Non-Delegable Duties  
• 11. Nuisance  
• 12. Rylands v Fletcher and Strict Liability  
• 13. Occupiers’ Liability  
• 14. Defamation  
• 15. Privacy  
• 16. Product Liability  
• 17. Breach of Statutory Duty  
• 18. Trespass to Land and Goods, and Conversion  

More on this topic

External resources.

Printed from Oxford Law Trove. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 27 August 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.39.149.46]
• 185.39.149.46

Characters remaining 500 /500

• Forgot your password?

My Reviewer

Why Casebriefs ™ ?

Register for your free casebriefs ™ account.

• The Open University
• Accessibility hub
• Guest user / Sign out
• Study with The Open University

My OpenLearn Profile

Personalise your OpenLearn profile, save your favourite content and get recognition for your learning

Three Tort law cases you should know

Find out more about The OU's Law qualifications.

Monroe v Hopkins: The Tort of Defamation

Can comments written on a social media site land an individual in trouble with the law? Discover how a series of tweets put Katie Hopkins in hot legal water...

 Transcript

Thompson-Schwab and Another v Costaki and Another: The Tort of Private Nuisance

If the enjoyment of your home is affected by a neighbour’s activities have you got a case for the Tort of Private Nuisance? Yes, might be the obvious answer, but what if the activities are legal but morally offensive to you..? 

  Transcript

Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd: The Tort of Vicarious Liability

If a worker makes a mistake that causes a lot of damage does liability lie with their employer? What if their employer was subcontracted by another company? Explore how two employers can be liable…

More law animations and FREE courses

Five Equity, Trust and Land Law Cases You Should Know

From gagging a kiss and tell story to the issues around the statement 'finders keepers', take a look at some of these extraordinary animated law cases and why they matter.

Starting with law

This free course, Starting with law, explores key legal concepts such as legal capacity and the rights and responsibilities of the individual. You will examine how laws are made, and how they affect us at different points in our lives. It is an ideal course if you are a beginner or returning to study.

Equity – law and idea

This free course, Equity – law and idea, gives you the opportunity to broaden your skills in and knowledge and understanding of legal principles. Beyond the confines of the Common Law of England and Wales Equity is rarely discussed or understood, but has long played a vital role in the social, economic, cultural and political life of the nation....

Human rights and law

Human rights now seem to take precedent over many areas of our lives, but where do these rights come from and how did they develop? This free course, Human rights and the law, looks at the impact of the European Convention on Human Rights and its influence on law in the UK and examines the Human Rights Act 1998.

Become an OU student

Ratings & comments, share this free course, copyright information, publication details.

• Originally published: Friday, 3 November 2017
• Body text - Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 : The Open University
• Image 'Equity – law and idea' - Copyright free
• Image 'Human rights and law' - Copyright: Used with permission
• Image 'Starting with law' - Copyright: Used with permission
• Image 'Five Equity, Trust and Land Law Cases You Should Know' - The Open University under Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 license
• Image 'Three Tort law cases you should know' - The Open University under Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 license

Rate and Review

Rate this video, review this video.

Log into OpenLearn to leave reviews and join in the conversation.

Video reviews

For further information, take a look at our frequently asked questions which may give you the support you need.

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.