UPSC MainsLAW-PAPER-II201115 Marks150 Words
Q4.

Before a person can recover for loss which he suffered from another person's act, it must be shown that his case falls within the class of actionable wrongs. Discuss.

How to Approach

This question requires a discussion on the fundamental principle of tort law – the requirement of an actionable wrong for a successful claim of damages. The answer should begin by defining 'actionable wrong' and its roots in the concept of 'tort'. It should then elaborate on different categories of actionable wrongs (negligence, trespass, defamation etc.) and explain why a claimant must demonstrate their case falls within one of these categories. Illustrative examples and relevant case law will strengthen the response. A structured approach, categorizing different types of wrongs, is recommended.

Model Answer

0 min read

Introduction

The legal principle that a person can only recover damages for a loss suffered due to another’s act if that act constitutes an ‘actionable wrong’ is a cornerstone of tort law. This principle stems from the historical development of remedies available to individuals for private wrongs, distinct from criminal offenses. An ‘actionable wrong’, broadly defined, is a violation of a legal right that gives rise to a legal remedy, typically damages. Without fitting into a recognized category of actionable wrongs, a claimant’s grievance, however unfortunate, will not be entertained by the courts. This ensures legal certainty and prevents frivolous litigation.

Understanding Actionable Wrongs

An ‘actionable wrong’ is not simply any undesirable outcome caused by another’s actions; it must fall within the established categories recognized by the law. These categories, collectively known as ‘torts’, are based on the idea of protecting fundamental rights and interests. Historically, these rights were developed through common law, and are now often codified in statutes.

Categories of Actionable Wrongs

  • Negligence: This involves a breach of a duty of care owed to another, resulting in foreseeable harm. The landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 established the ‘neighbour principle’ defining the scope of duty of care.
  • Trespass to Person: This includes assault, battery, and false imprisonment – direct intentional interference with another’s bodily integrity or freedom of movement.
  • Trespass to Property: Unlawful interference with another’s possession of land or goods.
  • Defamation: False statements that harm a person’s reputation. This can be libel (written) or slander (spoken).
  • Nuisance: Interference with another’s enjoyment of their property. This can be public (affecting the community) or private (affecting an individual).
  • Conversion: Dealing with another’s goods in a manner inconsistent with their ownership rights.
  • Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally causing severe emotional distress. (This is less common and requires a high threshold).

The Requirement of a Legal Right

The core principle is that the claimant must demonstrate a violation of a legally protected right. This right can be based on common law principles, statutory provisions, or constitutional guarantees. For instance, a claim for defamation requires proof that the statement lowered the claimant’s reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. Simply feeling offended or inconvenienced is not enough.

Illustrative Examples

Consider a scenario where a person suffers financial loss due to a competitor’s aggressive but lawful business practices. While the loss is real, it is unlikely to be recoverable unless the competitor engaged in an actionable wrong like defamation or unfair trade practices violating specific statutes. Similarly, if someone witnesses a distressing event but suffers no direct harm, they generally cannot sue for emotional distress unless they were within the ‘zone of danger’ (as established in some jurisdictions).

Statutory Recognition and Limitations

While many torts originated in common law, statutes often modify or supplement these principles. For example, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides a statutory framework for claims arising from road accidents, establishing a ‘no-fault’ liability in certain cases. Furthermore, statutes of limitations restrict the time within which a claim can be brought, even if an actionable wrong has occurred.

The Role of Remedies

The availability of a remedy – typically damages, but also potentially injunctions or specific performance – is contingent upon establishing an actionable wrong. The purpose of remedies is to compensate the claimant for their loss and restore them, as far as possible, to the position they were in before the wrong occurred.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the requirement that a loss must stem from an ‘actionable wrong’ before recovery is possible is a fundamental tenet of tort law. It ensures that the legal system is not overwhelmed with claims based on mere misfortune, but rather focuses on protecting legally recognized rights and providing redress for genuine violations. The categorization of actionable wrongs provides a framework for assessing liability and determining appropriate remedies, balancing individual rights with the need for legal certainty and predictability.

Answer Length

This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.

Additional Resources

Key Definitions

Tort
A civil wrong, other than a breach of contract, for which a remedy may be obtained, usually in the form of damages.
Damages
Monetary compensation awarded to a claimant to remedy a wrong suffered. Damages can be compensatory (to cover losses) or punitive (to punish the wrongdoer).

Key Statistics

According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data (2022), there were 1,58,878 cases registered under 'Other IPC Crimes' which often include civil wrongs leading to criminal proceedings, highlighting the overlap between tort and criminal law.

Source: NCRB, Crime in India Report 2022

As per a 2021 report by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), approximately 70% of the Indian population lacks access to adequate legal representation, potentially hindering their ability to pursue claims for actionable wrongs.

Source: NALSA Report on Access to Justice, 2021

Examples

Rylands v Fletcher (1868)

This case established the principle of strict liability – a tort where a person is liable for damages caused by a dangerous activity even if they were not negligent. A landowner brought water onto his land, which escaped and flooded a neighboring mine. He was held liable despite taking reasonable care.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between a tort and a crime?

A tort is a private wrong, pursued by the injured party for compensation. A crime is a public wrong, prosecuted by the state for punishment. The same act can sometimes be both a tort and a crime (e.g., assault).

Topics Covered

LawTort LawCivil LawRemedies