Mental Elements in Tortious Liability

Assessment Week – Task 1
Topic
Mental Elements in Tortious Liability
Assigned Intern
Jay Sharma
Richa Ayengia
Mental Elements in Tortious Liability
Tortious liability occurs when a person causes any harm to the plaintiff's property, life,
reputation, or other assets and consequently, the aggrieved party receives monetary
compensation in the form of unliquidated damages. By "mental elements," we imply a
person's "intention" to cause legal harm to another person by infringing on his legal rights
with intention basically referring to a state of mind in which the wrongdoer is fully aware of
his actions and their repercussions. The presence of mental element forms is pertinent in
criminal law. Nonetheless, under tort law, its existence is determined by the circumstances
and facts of each case with its presence aggravating the damages. However, under the law of
torts the stance are as follows:
1. Fault when Relevant
2. No-fault liability
Fault when Relevant
In torts such as assault, battery, false imprisonment, deception, malicious prosecution, and
conspiracy, the person's state of mind is relevant in determining his liability. We must
determine if a particular wrongful conduct was done knowingly or maliciously. In some
cases, knowledge, along with reasonable care and substantial certainty, that the defendant's
actions would result in a tortious consequence, is sufficient to hold him accountable. While
comparing the defendant's conduct to that of a reasonable man and holding him accountable
only when his conduct falls below the level anticipated of a reasonable man, one of the most
prominent examples is that of negligence. These are frequently committed for a breach of a
duty of care that a reasonable person would have recognised under normal circumstances. For
example A drunk driver who injures a pedestrian by accident may not have meant to injure
the pedestrian. However, because driving while drunk presents an unacceptable risk of injury
to pedestrians and other drivers, he may be found accountable to an injured plaintiff for
negligence notwithstanding his lack of intent to injure the plaintiff. To illustrate with a
leading case in M.P. State Electricity Board v. Ramlal Vishwakarma, 1here a ten-year-old boy
died as a result of electrocution after getting into touch with a live stay wire buried in an
electric pole while electricity was running through it. The M.P. High Court held the
defendant liable to pay compensation to the father of the deceased child because they were
neglectful in their duties. Stating that the defendants were obligated to evaluate and monitor,
on a reasonable and regular basis, whether any current was flowing in the stay wire so that no
human or animals would be put in danger.
But we should also know that in some specific cases, the non-attendance of intention or bona
fide mistake is a very good defence, because if a defendant's behaviour is innocent inasmuch
as the act was caused by inevitable accident, the crux of this defence being that the incident
could not have been avoided even with appropriate care, and hence the claimant would have
surely incurred a damage, regardless of the defendant's purpose. For example, suppose A was
driving a car and was completely in control and followed all necessary precautions, but his
automobile suddenly loses its balance and collides with a pedestrian owing to a mechanical
breakdown. In this situation, the driver would not be held accountable because he took all
reasonable measures. The mishap was unavoidable. Similarly, necessity is viewed to be
asserted when the defendant's behaviour is not motivated by a wrongful purpose, but rather is
obliged by the circumstances to willfully inflict some smaller harm in order to avert a bigger
harm. Quite often, such emergency situations develop while other people are not there,
demonstrating the necessity to disobey the law for a certain urgency, which, while difficult, is
believed to be acceptable to some level. For example, if the defendant invaded his
1
M.P. State Electricity Board v. Ramlal Vishwakarma, 2013 SCC OnLine MP 2546
neighbour's land without his consent in order to prevent the spread of fire into his own land,
he will not be held liable for trespass since his behaviour was deemed reasonably required.
No-Fault Liability
Certain areas are completely irrelevant to the mental element, and culpability arises even in
the absence of improper intent or carelessness on the part of the defendant. These are the
types of torts in which the defendant is not directly at fault or makes a mistake but is
nevertheless held accountable as the responsible party for the conduct. This concept is
referred to as "no-fault liability."
These responsibilities may emerge as a result of the defendant's knowledge or purpose. Thus,
when these liabilities occur as a result of awareness, they are referred to as unintentional torts
or non-malicious torts, and when they arise as a result of purpose, they are referred to as
malicious torts or intentional torts. In such instances, the defendant's innocence or an honest
mistake is inadmissible. The conversion tort is an illustration of this. Thus, an auctioneer who
sells items on behalf of a client who lacks title to the commodities is responsible for
conversion, even if the auctioneer thought the customer was the genuine owner at the time of
sale. In the case of defamation also, the defendant can be made liable when he did not intend
to defame but his actions turned out to be defamatory.
Additionally, in the situation of vicarious liability, a person may be held guilty even though
he was not at fault. Rylands v. Fletcher2 established the strict liability rule. Under that law, if
a person makes an unnatural use of his land by gathering anything that is likely to cause
mischief if it escapes, he will be accountable for any harm caused by the object thus gathered.
2
Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330
In such a circumstance, claiming the defendant was not careless in acquiring the object or
allowing it to escape is inadmissible. Additionally, liability is severe when an individual who
is aware of an animal's deadly nature continues to do so. Similarly, the notion of absolute
responsibility has been acknowledged in the context of hazardous and intrinsically dangerous
industries.

Mental Elements in Tortious Liability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mental Elements in Tortious Liability

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mental Elements in Tortious Liability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessment Week – Task 1

compensation in the form of unliquidated damages. By "mental elements," we imply a

torts the stance are as follows:

1. Fault when Relevant

Fault when Relevant

conspiracy, the person's state of mind is relevant in determining his liability. We must

determine if a particular wrongful conduct was done knowingly or maliciously. In some

human or animals would be put in danger.

reasonable measures. The mishap was unavoidable. Similarly, necessity is viewed to be

referred to as "no-fault liability."

to defame but his actions turned out to be defamatory.

allowing it to escape is inadmissible. Additionally, liability is severe when an individual who

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.