Q: What are the essential elements of tort of wrongful imprisonment ?

Ans: Following are the essential elements of tort of wrongful imprisonment: 


1. Intentional Confinement:

Defendent act with Intention to confine or restraint plaintiff. 

The defendent action must be intentional to confine or restrain plaintiff. 

If the confinement by defendent is accidental, the defendant will not be liable for tort of wrongful imprisonment. 

2. Total confinement:

There is no other means to escape the plaintiff, the confinement is total confinement.  If there exists another means to escape the plaintiff,  the confinement is not total confinement and the confinement will be partial confinement.

3. Confinement must be without lawful justification.

The restraint should be unlawful or without any justification.

The confinement must be unlawful.  If it is lawful, it will  not make the defendant liable for wrongful imprisonment.

For instance: If a thief enters into the house and the person locks and confine the thief which is for lawful purpose , and hence the person will not be liable for wrongful imprisonment.

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