Q: Can a minor be sued under law of tort ?

Ans: In accordance with Underhill's law of torts, an extreme youth might afford a defence to an infant in certain types of action such as actions for fraud or negligence and perhaps even defamation; but as actions are not brought against children,  there is no direct decision on this point .

An infant, however who has reached years of discretion is as liable for his torts as an adult subject to important exception. Generally speaking an infant is not liable on his contract,  and as the law will not permit an infant to be sued in tort which is so connected with his contract as to be a part of same transaction. Where, therefore, the act is connected with a contract it must in order to render an infant liable for it, be a wrongful act independent of the contract in the sense of not being of the kind contemplated by it.

An infant will be liable for the following torts if he is matured enough to understand the consequences of the act. These acts are as follows:
1. Assault
2. False imprisonment
3. Libel
4. Slander 
5. Seduction 
6. Trespass 
7. Fraud 
8. Wrongful detention of goods
9. Embezzlement 
10. Nuisance 
11. Injuries that occurs due to negligence of infant.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Difference between Injuria Sine Damno and Damnum Sine Injuria ?

Ans: Tort in Injuria Sine Damno and Damnum Sine Injuria. Injury means the legal right has been violated.  In Injuria Sine Damno, there is an injury without damage.  Here, the legal right has been violated  but there is no damage and the essential condition in Tort is that the legal right must be violated. Thus, Injuria Sine Damno is to be considered in Tort.  Damnum Sine Injuria means there are damages but there is no injury. Here, there are damages but the legal right has not violated. The essential condition in tort is that the legal right must be violated but here there is no violation of legal right. Hence, Damnum Sine Injuria is not considered in tort.
Read more

Q: What is Re Polemis Case in tort of remoteness of damage?

Ans: In Re Polemis case, court rejected test of reasonable foresight and applied test of directness of tort of remoteness of damage.  Re Polemis Case The defendant hired (chartered) a ship. He loaded ship with tin of benzene and petrol. Due to leakage of the tins some petrol collected on the hold of ship. Due to negligence of defendant servant, a plank fell on the hold and spark caused fire in the whole ship. Ship was burnt totally. Here defendant was held liable although he cannot reasonable foresee. Test of directness was applied.
Read more

Q: Elaborate the citation of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati and another (1962) ?

Ans:  The State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati and another (1962). Lokumal i.e. Defendant no. 1, a temporary employee of the State of Rajasthan was employed as a motor driver (on probation) of a government jeep car under the Collector of Udaipur. The car had been sent for repairs. On February 11, 1952, while driving the car back from the workshop after the repairs were done, defendant no. 1 knocked down one Jagdishlal, who was walking on the footpath by the side of the public road. Jagdishlal was severely injured and his skull and backbone were fractured. Three days later, he died in the hospital.  The court held that the state will be liable to pay compensation for the Tort of his employee.
Read more