Myth-busting Law of Torts: A Comparative Study of Indian and Anglo-American Jurisprudence

As law students, we're often told that the Law of Torts is a complex and convoluted subject, with a seemingly endless array of rules and exceptions. But what if I told you that many of these "rules" are little more than myths, perpetuated by outdated statutes and archaic judicial decisions? In this article, we'll embark on a comparative study of Indian and Anglo-American jurisprudence, and explore the ways in which our courts are slowly catching up to the realities of modern life.

Myth #1: The Tort of Negligence is only about physical harm

Section 52 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, defines "negligence" as the " omission to exercise the care, which a man of ordinary prudence would exercise in the circumstances of the case." But what about cases where the harm is not physical, but rather emotional or psychological? The Indian courts have been slow to recognize the tort of "nervous shock," but in Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd (1949), the House of Lords in the UK held that a plaintiff could recover damages for shock, anxiety, and depression caused by witnessing a horrific accident.

This highlights the need for Indian courts to adopt a more nuanced approach to the tort of negligence, one that recognizes the full range of potential harms that can be caused by a defendant's actions.

Myth #2: The Tort of Intentional Torts is only about physical violence

While it's true that physical violence is a classic example of an intentional tort, it's not the only one. In Watt v Hertfordshire County Council (1954), the UK's Court of Appeal held that a defendant could be liable for intentional harassment, even if no physical harm was caused. Similarly, in Deolalikar v Deolalikar (1979), the Gujarat High Court in India recognized that a defendant could be liable for mental cruelty, even if no physical harm was caused.

These cases demonstrate that the tort of intentional torts is not limited to physical violence, but can also encompass a range of other behaviors that cause harm to the plaintiff.

Myth #3: The Limitation Act is a rigid and inflexible framework

While it's true that the Limitation Act, 1963, sets out specific time limits for filing tort claims, it's not a rigid or inflexible framework. In Union of India v Chintaman Rao (1995), the Supreme Court of India held that the Limitation Act is a procedural statute, and that courts should interpret it in a way that is "fair, just, and reasonable."

This highlights the need for courts to adopt a more nuanced approach to the Limitation Act, one that recognizes the complexities and nuances of individual cases.