Tort Law: Understanding Civil Wrongs
In the realm of jurisprudence, the concept of a “wrong” is broad, yet the law categorizes these wrongs into specific domains to ensure justice is served effectively. Tort law serves as one of the most vital pillars of the legal system, providing a framework for individuals to seek compensation for harms caused by others. While often confused with crimes or contract disputes, a tort possesses unique characteristics that define its role in civil society.
What Is Meant by Tort?
The word Tort is derived from the Latin term tortum, which literally translates to “twisted” or “crooked.” Legally, a tort is a civil wrong (other than a breach of contract) that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the act (the tortfeasor).
The Three Pillars of Tortious Liability
Torts are generally classified based on the nature of the defendant’s conduct:
- Intentional Torts: Purposeful conduct resulting in harm (e.g., Assault, Battery, Trespass).
- Negligence: A failure to exercise “reasonable care” when a duty is owed (e.g., Medical malpractice).
- Strict Liability: Liability regardless of fault, applied to ultra-hazardous activities (e.g., keeping dangerous animals).
Essential Elements With Landmark Case Laws
For an act to be classified as a tort, it must satisfy three conditions. These are best understood through the historical cases that defined them.
Wrongful Act or Omission
There must be a violation of a legal duty fixed by law. This can be a positive act or a failure to act where required.
Legal Injury (Injuria Sine Damno)
This maxim applies when a legal right is violated even if the victim suffers no actual physical or financial loss.
Landmark Case: Ashby v. White (1703)
| Facts | A returning officer maliciously refused to allow a qualified voter (Ashby) to vote. Ashby’s candidate won anyway, meaning he suffered no “damage.” |
|---|---|
| Decision | The court held the officer liable. Chief Justice Holt famously stated, “If the plaintiff has a right, he must of necessity have a means to vindicate it.” |
Absence of Liability for Non-Legal Harm (Damnum Sine Injuria)
This applies when a person suffers actual loss, but no legal right was violated. In such cases, no action in tort lies.
Landmark Case: Gloucester Grammar School Case (1410)
Facts
- A teacher set up a rival school next to the plaintiff’s school.
- The plaintiff had to lower his fees to compete, losing significant money.
Decision
The court held the defendant not liable. Competition is lawful; therefore, financial loss without a violation of a legal right is not a tort.
How Tort Differs from Crime and Breach of Contract
The Nature of the Wrong
- Crime: A crime is a threat to the peace and order of the entire community (public wrong).
- Tort: A tort is a private dispute between individuals. If you slip in a shop, the State does not intervene unless you file a lawsuit.
Standard of Proof
- Crime: A criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt (near 100%).
- Tort: A tort requires only the balance of probabilities (more likely than not, or 51%+).
The Role of Intention (Mens Rea)
- Crime: A “guilty mind” is almost always required.
- Tort: Intention is often secondary; a person can be held liable for negligence simply because they were careless, even if they meant well.
The Parties to the Action
- Crime: The State (Prosecutor) sues the Accused.
- Tort: The victim (Plaintiff) sues the Defendant.
Nature of the Remedy
- Crime: Punitive (jail or fines paid to the State).
- Tort: Remedial (compensation paid directly to the victim).
Consent of the Victim
- Crime: Consent is usually irrelevant (you cannot legally consent to be murdered).
- Tort: The maxim Volenti non fit injuria applies—if you consent to the risk (like playing sports), you cannot usually sue for resulting harm.
Power of Settlement
- Crime: The victim cannot usually drop charges for serious offenses.
- Tort: Parties can settle out of court for money at any time.
Tort vs. Breach of Contract
While both are civil wrongs, they originate from different legal obligations and serve different purposes within the justice system.
Source of Duty
- Breach of Contract: The duties are voluntarily created by the parties involved. The parties sit down and agree on specific terms (e.g., “I will pay you $1,000, and you will build a fence”).
- Tort: The duties are imposed by the law (statutes or common law). You do not need to agree to be bound by tort law; the law simply mandates that you must not harm others, regardless of your consent.
Privity of Contract
- Breach of Contract: Only the parties who signed the contract can sue or be sued (the doctrine of privity). A stranger to the contract generally has no standing to bring a claim.
- Tort: There is no requirement for a prior relationship. A duty of care is owed to persons generally (your “neighbors” in a legal sense).
Nature of Damages (Compensation)
- Breach of Contract: Damages are usually liquidated. The amount is often predetermined or calculated based on the financial loss of the “benefit of the bargain.”
- Tort: Damages are unliquidated. The amount is not fixed in advance; a judge or jury decides the amount based on the extent of the harm.
The Role of Intention and Motive
- Breach of Contract: Motive is generally irrelevant.
- Tort: Motive and intention are often central, especially in intentional torts such as assault or defamation.
Capacity of Parties (Minors)
- Breach of Contract: Contracts with minors are often void or voidable.
- Tort: A minor can be sued for tortious acts, subject to an age-adjusted standard of care.
Limitation Period (Time to File)
- Breach of Contract: The limitation period usually begins when the breach occurs.
- Tort: The limitation period often begins when the damage is sustained or discovered.
Duties Owed
- Breach of Contract: Duties are specific and limited to what was agreed upon.
- Tort: The duty is a general duty of care owed to all who may be reasonably affected.
Direct vs. Indirect Damages
- Breach of Contract: Recovery is usually limited to losses within the contemplation of the parties.
- Tort: Liability may extend to all direct consequences, even if greater than expected.
Comparison Table
| Feature | Tort | Crime | Breach of Contract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source of Duty | Imposed by Law | Fixed by State Statute | Agreed by Parties |
| Parties | Plaintiff vs. Defendant | State vs. Accused | Contractor vs. Contractee |
| Remedy | Unliquidated Damages | Punishment (Jail/Fine) | Liquidated Damages |
| Standard of Proof | Balance of Probabilities | Beyond Reasonable Doubt | Balance of Probabilities |
The Triple-Wrong Scenario: Practical Example
One single act can simultaneously trigger liability in all three branches of law. Such as:
The Practical Scenario: The Drunk Surgeon
The Scenario
A patient hires a surgeon for a specific operation (Contract). The surgeon arrives intoxicated (Crime), performs a different, unauthorized surgery using dirty tools, and causes a permanent infection (Tort).
Legal Consequences Arising From a Single Act
- Breach of Contract: The surgeon failed the contractual obligation to provide the agreed-upon service with reasonable skill. The patient can sue for a refund.
- Tort: The surgeon breached the “Duty of Care” owed to the patient. The patient can sue for “Unliquidated Damages” for pain, suffering, and permanent disability.
- Crime: Operating while intoxicated and performing unauthorized surgery constitutes “Grievous Hurt” or “Criminal Negligence.” The state can prosecute the surgeon for a prison sentence.
The Practical Scenario: The Reckless Taxi Driver
Another powerful example where a single act constitutes a Tort, a Crime, and a Breach of Contract involves the relationship between a Commercial Carrier (like a taxi or bus company) and a Passenger.
The Scenario
Imagine you hire a taxi through a ride-sharing app or a private company to take you to a business meeting. You pay the fare upfront, creating a contract for safe transport. During the trip, the driver—in an attempt to show off—begins “street racing” with another car at high speeds, ignores red lights, and eventually crashes, causing you a severe spinal injury.
This single act—reckless driving while under a service contract—triggers three distinct legal liabilities:
As a Breach of Contract
- The Wrong: When you booked the ride, a contract was formed. An implied term of any transport contract is that the carrier will transport the passenger with reasonable safety and care.
- The Violation: By engaging in street racing instead of driving you directly and safely to your destination, the driver breached the contractual agreement.
- The Remedy: You are entitled to a refund of the fare and compensation for any direct financial loss (e.g., missing an expensive flight or a high-stakes business meeting).
As a Tort (Negligence)
- The Wrong: Every driver on the road owes a legal duty of care to their passengers and other road users. This duty exists by law, even if no money was exchanged.
- The Violation: The driver’s “reckless” behavior fell far below the standard of a “reasonable person.” This constitutes the tort of Negligence.
- The Remedy: You can sue for unliquidated damages—a sum determined by the court to cover your medical bills, long-term rehabilitation, and “pain and suffering.”
As a Crime
- The Wrong: The driver’s conduct (street racing and ignoring traffic signals) is a public wrong. It endangers not just you, but every other person on the road.
- The Violation: Most jurisdictions classify this as “Reckless Endangerment” or “Dangerous Driving.” If the injury is severe, it may be categorized as “Vehicular Assault.”
- The Remedy: The Police/State will arrest and prosecute the driver. The outcome is punitive—the driver may face jail time, heavy fines paid to the government, and the permanent loss of their driver’s license.
Comparison of the Legal Impact
| Legal Category | Why It Applies? | What Is the Goal? |
|---|---|---|
| Contract | Failure to provide the “Safe Ride” promised. | Return of money paid for the service. |
| Tort | Breach of the universal duty not to harm others. | Money to pay for your physical recovery. |
| Crime | Violation of traffic laws and public safety. | Punishment/Jail to prevent future racing. |
The Practical Scenario: The Fraudulent and Dangerous Landlord
Imagine Company A (the Tenant) leases a high-end commercial warehouse from Mr. X (the Landlord) to store expensive electronic equipment. The lease agreement (Contract) explicitly states that Mr. X is responsible for maintaining a functional fire suppression system.
Knowing the system is broken and dangerous, Mr. X decides to save money by not fixing it. To hide this, he intentionally tampers with the alarm panel to show a “Green” status and falsifies safety certificates. A small electrical fire breaks out; because the system was sabotaged, the warehouse burns down, destroying the equipment and injuring a night security guard.
This single act—the intentional sabotage/omission of safety systems—constitutes three distinct legal wrongs:
As a Breach of Contract
- The Wrong: Mr. X had a contractual obligation under the lease to provide a functional and maintained fire suppression system.
- The Violation: By failing to maintain the system as promised in the written agreement, he has committed a direct breach of the lease.
- The Remedy: Company A can sue for the “loss of the bargain,” which might include the return of rent paid, moving costs, and the specific value of the destroyed property as defined by the contract.
As a Tort (Fraud and Negligence)
- The Wrong: Apart from the contract, every property owner owes a duty of care to occupants to keep the premises safe. Furthermore, intentionally deceiving someone about safety is the tort of Deceit/Fraud.
- The Violation: Mr. X’s act of tampering with the alarm panel is a “wrongful act.” He breached the duty of care owed to the tenant and the security guard.
- The Remedy: The security guard (who has no contract with the landlord) and the Company can sue for unliquidated damages for physical injuries, emotional distress, and the total value of the lost inventory.
As a Crime (Arson or Criminal Negligence)
- The Wrong: Intentionally creating a fire hazard or sabotaging life-saving equipment is a public offense that threatens human life.
- The Violation: In many jurisdictions, this would be classified as “Criminal Endangerment” or “Culpable Homicide” (if someone died). The falsification of safety documents also constitutes the crime of Forgery or Fraud.
- The Remedy: The State will prosecute Mr. X. He faces imprisonment and heavy criminal fines because his actions endangered the community and violated public safety laws.
Triple Liability Summary
| Perspective | Legal Issue | Primary Goal |
|---|---|---|
| Contract | Violation of Lease Terms | Compensate for the broken promise. |
| Tort | Negligence and Deceit | Compensate for the actual harm/injury. |
| Crime | Criminal Endangerment | Punish the landlord for illegal acts. |
Conclusion
The architecture of Tort Law is a sophisticated legal mechanism designed to balance the scales of justice between private individuals. By shifting the financial burden of a loss from the victim to the wrongdoer, it ensures that personal rights—such as bodily integrity, property ownership, and reputation—are not merely theoretical concepts but are legally enforceable interests.
As explored in this article, the boundaries between Tort, Crime, and Contract are distinct yet permeable. While a contract manages the specific expectations between two consenting parties and criminal law guards the collective security of the state, tort law fills the vital gap by establishing a universal standard of “reasonable care” that every citizen owes to one another.
The “Triple-Wrong” scenarios—ranging from the negligent surgeon to the reckless driver and the fraudulent landlord—demonstrate that the law does not operate in a vacuum. A single harmful act can trigger a cascade of legal consequences, requiring a wrongdoer to face the state for punishment, the contracting party for a failed promise, and the victim for personal restitution. Ultimately, the study of torts is the study of civil responsibility; it serves as a reminder that in a civilized society, we are all legally bound to look out for our “neighbors” and held accountable when our “twisted” or “crooked” actions cause harm.
Written By: Judge Nazmul Hasan
Senior Judicial Magistrate | Prime Minister Gold Medalist
Nazmul Hasan is a highly accomplished judicial officer and legal scholar from Bangladesh, distinguished by a rare blend of judicial service excellence and unparalleled academic achievement.
Professional Expertise
| Title | Achievement / Service | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Senior Judicial Magistrate | Bangladesh Judicial Service (BJS) | Serving as a Senior Judicial Magistrate, demonstrating profound expertise in dispensing justice and administering court procedures. |
| Service Rank | 11th Bangladesh Judicial Service (BJS) | Secured the 7th Merit Position overall in the rigorous 11th BJS competitive examination, marking an exceptional start to a distinguished judicial career. |
Academic Distinction
| Qualification | Institution | Recognition |
|---|---|---|
| LL.B. (Hons.) | University of Rajshahi | First Class First (Top of the Cohort), signifying ultimate academic mastery in undergraduate legal studies. |
| LL.M. | University of Rajshahi | Achieved First Class standing, further solidifying expertise and specialized knowledge in advanced legal disciplines. |
Honors And Achievements (Awards Of Excellence)
- Prime Minister Gold Medalist (2017): Awarded the nation’s most prestigious academic honor for outstanding performance across all disciplines at the university level.
- Agrani Bank Gold Medalist For Academic Excellence (2023): Recognized with this distinguished medal for sustained academic excellence and leadership in the field of law.
Professional Profile Summary
Nazmul Hasan’s profile reflects a commitment to judicial integrity and academic rigour, positioning him as a leading figure in the Bangladesh legal community.
Email: [email protected]
