is it law of torts and law of tort.docx

IS IT LAW OF TORT OR LAW OF TORTS: THE CONTROVERSY  AND THEORIES question is generally asked in the form, “is there a law of tort or only a law of torts?” There are two competing theories in this regard. According to one theory, there is a general principle that all wrongs are actionable as tort unless there is any legal  justication. The other theory says that there is no general principle of liability as such but only a denite number of torts as trespass, negligence, nuisance, defamation etc. and the plainti! has no remedy unless he brings his case under one of the nominate torts.

2. It Is Law Of Tort: "ineld is the chief supporter of this theory.. #e says, all injuries done to another theory anoth er person are torts, tort s, unless there is some justication recogni$ed by law. law. Thus according to this theory tort consists not merely of those torts which ha%e acquired specic names but also included the wider principle that all unjustiable harm is tortuous. This enables the courts to create new torts. "ineld while supporting this theory comes to the conclusion that law of tort is growing and from time to time courts ha%e created new torts. Supporters of Ths Theor!:  The theory gi%en by "ineld has been supported by many eminent &udges both ancient and modern. 'ollowing are some e(amples)* + #-T, #-T, .&. clearly fa%oured "ineld/s theory, by recogni$ing the principle of ubi jus ibi remedium. #e said that, if man will multiply injuries, actions must be multiplied too0 for e%ery man who is injured ought to ha%e recompense 12ef. 12ef. case* Ashby %. %. "hite 345678 9 -d. 2aym. :7;989 "ils 4@. + The tort of strict liability had its origin in 2ylands %. 'letcher 34;>;8 -2 7 #- 776. + The tort of intimidation in 2ookes %. Barnard 34:>8 4 All C2 7>5 'rom the abo%e mentioned cases it is clear that the law of tort is steadily e(panding and that the idea of its being in a set of pigeon*holes seems to be untenable.

W"#e$%&s Theor! A"% I"%a" 'u%(ar!: ndian judiciary has also shown a fa%our to "ineld/s theory. n the words of &ustice B#AH"AT, .&., we ha%e to e%ol%e new principles and lay down new norms which will adequately deal with new problems which arise in a highly industriali$ed economy. "e cannot allow our  judicial thinking to be constricted by reference to the law as it pre%ails in CnglandJJ. we are certainly prepared to recei%e light

from whate%er source it comes but we ha%e to build our own  &urisprudence. n the same case the Gupreme ourt of ndia established the concept of ABG-KTC -AB-TL in place of strict liability 12ef. case* F.. Fehta %. Knion of ndia, A2 4:;5 G 46;>