Law of Torts — CLAT Legal Reasoning
A tort is a civil wrong — not a crime and not a breach of contract — for which the remedy is usually damages (money) paid to the victim. CLAT tort questions almost always turn on one thing: did the facts satisfy every element of the wrong, and does a defence apply? Get the elements and the two key maxims, and the section reads itself.
1. What a tort is
A tort is a breach of a duty imposed by law (not by agreement), which gives the injured person a right to claim unliquidated damages. Two essentials must combine:
- The act must be one the law recognises as wrongful.
- There must be legal damage — a violation of a legal right — not merely factual loss.
This is where the two decisive maxims live.
2. The two maxims that decide traps
| Maxim | Meaning | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Injuria sine damno | Violation of a legal right without actual loss | Actionable — the legal right matters, not the loss |
| Damnum sine injuria | Actual loss without violation of a legal right | Not actionable — loss alone is not enough |
- Injuria sine damno — a returning officer wrongly refuses your valid vote; even if your candidate wins, your legal right was violated → actionable.
- Damnum sine injuria — a new shop opens beside yours and lawfully takes your customers; you lose money but no legal right of yours was breached → not actionable.
The single most tested torts idea in CLAT: loss without a legal wrong is damnum sine injuria and gives no claim. Watch for options that award damages just because the plaintiff "suffered a loss."
3. Negligence — the biggest tort
Negligence is the failure to take reasonable care that a prudent person would take. To succeed, the plaintiff must prove four elements, all of them:
- Duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.
- Breach of that duty (falling below the standard of a reasonable person).
- Causation — the breach actually caused the harm.
- Damage — real, not too remote (foreseeable).
- Standard of care rises with the risk — more care is owed handling explosives than handing over a book.
- Res ipsa loquitur ("the thing speaks for itself") — where the accident could not ordinarily happen without negligence (a surgical sponge left inside a patient), the burden shifts to the defendant to prove he was not negligent.
- Contributory negligence — if the plaintiff's own carelessness contributed to the harm, damages are reduced.
4. Other named torts
- Trespass to person — assault (threat causing apprehension of harm), battery (actual unlawful contact), false imprisonment (total restraint of movement without lawful justification).
- Trespass to land — unlawful entry onto another's land; actionable per se (without proof of damage).
- Nuisance — unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land (persistent noise, smoke, smells). Must be substantial and unreasonable; the law tolerates ordinary give-and-take.
- Defamation — a false statement lowering a person's reputation. Libel is written/permanent; slander is spoken/transient. Truth (justification) and fair comment are defences.
5. Strict and absolute liability
- Strict liability — the rule in Rylands v Fletcher: a person who brings and keeps something dangerous on his land is liable if it escapes and causes harm, even without negligence. Defences exist (plaintiff's own fault, act of God, act of a stranger, statutory authority, consent).
- Absolute liability — the Indian rule (M.C. Mehta v Union of India): an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity is absolutely liable for harm from an escape — with no exceptions. Developed after the Oleum gas leak; the Bhopal disaster is its backdrop.
Trap: strict liability has defences (act of God, stranger); absolute liability has none. Options that allow a hazardous-industry defendant to escape via "act of God" are testing exactly this difference.
6. Vicarious liability
One person is held liable for the tort of another because of their relationship:
- Master–servant: an employer is liable for torts a servant commits in the course of employment (not for a personal "frolic of his own").
- Principal–agent: a principal is liable for torts of an agent acting within authority.
The test is whether the wrongful act was connected to the authorised work, not merely that it happened during work hours.
7. General defences
Even where the elements of a tort are met, the defendant may escape liability by a valid defence:
| Defence | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Volenti non fit injuria | The plaintiff voluntarily consented to the risk (a boxer, a sports spectator) — no claim |
| Act of God (vis major) | An extraordinary natural event no human foresight could guard against |
| Inevitable accident | An unavoidable event despite reasonable care |
| Private defence | Reasonable force to protect person or property |
| Necessity | Harm done to prevent a greater harm |
| Statutory authority | The act was authorised by law |
- Volenti needs free and informed consent — mere knowledge of a risk is not the same as accepting it.
8. Exam protocol
- First ask: is there legal damage — a violated legal right? If it's mere loss, suspect damnum sine injuria → no claim.
- For negligence, check all four elements; a missing duty or remote damage defeats the claim.
- Classify the tort precisely (assault vs battery, libel vs slander, trespass vs nuisance) — options exploit the confusion.
- Distinguish strict (has defences) from absolute (no defences) liability.
- For vicarious liability, test "course of employment", not just "at work".
- Check every applicable defence — volenti, act of God, necessity — before concluding liability, and always follow the passage's stated rule.
