rexdexter 17 February 2021
Is your deadline coming like winter in “Game of Thrones”? Stop sharpening your sword and praying to the Old Gods! Apply to our specialists, and they’ll help you defeat deadline anxiety. https://quickessaywriting.com/ But don’t delay the ordering till the last moment – we need four hours at least to complete your paper fast with a top-notch quality.
175B083 Mahesh P S 18 February 2021
Hello,
Pigeon hole theory is one of the very profound theory in the field of law especially, in the law of torts. This theory is given Salmond. There were many different theories regarding tortuous liability different person has penned different opinion. But there are two major theories which are based on the basic principle of liability in the law of tort or torts.
• Wider and narrower theory: under this theory, all the wrongs that are committed by one party to another is considered to fall under the law of tort. Without any proper and legal justification.
• Pigeon hole theory: many such torts are present which does not fall under the liability of torts.
According to Salmond if one person commits any wrong and that wrong can be placed in a pigeon hole or he opined that there is no general principle and if the plaintiff can by any mean put that wrong in the pigeon-hole which has all the labelled torts, then the plaintiff could succeed.
He also states that the way criminal law has certain offences which are clearly listed similarly torts law should also have certain injuries that are legally verified and justified. There is no general principle in case of torts neither in one or another case.
According to him, there are only certain well defined wrongs that are to be listed as torts and are confined in small box called pigeon hole. He is against the idea of generalizing tort as the law of tort. He further states that any wrong which falls under the well-constructed definition of trots only for those wrongs, the remedy will be available. For more significantly explaining the theory he compared torts with pigeon hole, where each wrong are mentioned under smaller holes such as Negligence, Assault, Battery, Deceit, Slander. And if any wrong does not fit under these holes then those are not torts.
Many people say that confining this law of torts when it is expanding at an exponential rate is not just. This statement is evident from the case of Donoghue V. Stevenson. Where a snail was found at the bottom of the ginger bottle and a complaint was lodged against the seller. However, since the injury could not be foreseen so the owner was not held liable instead the manufacturer was made liable for the negligence. And a new set of the rule was framed that everyone should love their neighbors and should not favors any work that harms their neighbors.
Also Read: RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR- Legal Maxim
In defense, to above statement, Salmond states that just as criminal law has certain listed and well-defined offences similarly law of tort also has certain defined injuries’, there is no justified principle either in one or another case. Salmond encouraged the concept of law of torts rather that law of tort.
Supporters of this Theory.
Salmond’s theory was favored by Jenks who said that Salmond did not restrict the court to create new torts, every new wrong created by the court should have qualities similar to already existing torts and must fall under the definition setup to be called torts. In the 17th edition, Salmond’s Editor has pointed out that all the critics to this theory have not understood and Salmond being misunderstood as he did not ask the court to stop or did not closed the pigeon’s hole for further upcoming wrongs.
According to the theory of torts, as given by Winfield, there is no division in law of torts every action. In other words, each and every word not only those which are specified but also those which are included are termed under the law of torts. Winfield has developed this and compared it with the tree which has several branches and everything is covered under it.
It is also imagined that society develops at an exponential rate and the crime is increasing day by day. A very famous case of Mexico called Schmitz V. Smentowsk that tort is created as prima facial as a remedy and it is said in the above-mentioned case that all the wrong are tort only if they fall under the category and qualify the criteria decided for any wrong to fall under the case.
The Prima Facia torts as prescribed courts are:-
These are also called the general principles of torts. And these are the conditions which when qualified, the plaintiff can file a prima facia complaint against any tort being committed. There exist no hard and fast rule that every case get fits under the pigeon hole.
Further, there are many cases evolving in the meantime, these are certain cases that support the Winfield theory of torts.
• Pasley V. Freeman:- concept of deceit is covered under this case.
• Lumley V. Gye:- the concept of inducement and breach of contract is dealt under this case.
• Winsmore V. Greenback:- inducement of wife to leave his husband.
• Roland V. Fletcher:- strict liability is wealth under this case.
Thus, the decided cases are against the proposition advanced by Salmond because the courts undoubtedly have the power to recognize a novel claim if justice so requires, although the process may take time.
Reception of law of torts in India.
Winfield proposed that “ every injury is a tort unless justified”, whereas Salmond said that “ no injury can be said to be tort until or unless they satisfy the condition of pigeon hole”. That’s why the book explaining this concept of tort written by Winfield is called ‘law of tort’, whereas book by Salmond is called ‘law of torts’.
The concept of “law of torts” has emerged in England. The main aim of this law is to provide a remedy to the person whose rights has been infringed. It is also the second hand of criminal justice by awarding exemplary damages. This concept has been a famous and secured place in the United States and the United Kingdom and many different countries. But still, it is a growing branch if the tree and still developing in India. This tort is active in litigation, Judiciary and people.
Aspect of criticism
A general question of debate is whether the subject of tort should be called as ‘Law of Torts’ or ‘Law of Tort’. According to Salmond it is law of torts and in his support he proposed the Pigeon Hole Theory.
Salmond in his book asked a question – ‘Does the law of torts consists of a fundamental general principle that it is wrongful to cause harm to other persons in the absence of some specific ground of justification or excuse, or does it consists of a number of specific rules prohibiting certain kinds of harmful activity, and leaving all the residue outside the sphere of legal responsibility?’
In his support we can propose examples, as in Furniss v. Fitchett (1958) N.Z.L.R. 396 at 401 Barrow C.J. said ‘the well known torts do not have their origin in any all embracing general principle of tortuous liability.’
In Bollinger v. Costa Brava Wine Co. Ltd. (1960) ch.262 at 283, Danckwerts J.said ‘ the substance was that 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.’
Pigeon hole theory: Salmond chose the Second alternative, and as per him the liability under this branch of law arises only when the wrong is covered by any one or the other nominate torts. We can presume these nominate torts as pigeon holes with some specific essentials. If the plaintiff can place his wrong in any one of the pigeon hole, each containing a labeled tort, he will succeed.
So, there is no general principle of liability. According to Salmond just as criminal law torts consists of a body of rules establishing specific injuries.
Winfield on the other hand was the supporter of the first alternative as posed by Salmond in his book. He says, all injuries done to another person are torts, unless there is some justification recognized by law. Thus according to this theory tort consists of not merely of those wrongs which have acquired specific names but also includes the wider principle that all unjustified harm is tortious.
Supporting Winfield’s view we can discuss the matter from another point of view. The general meaning of the word tort is wrong. These specific kind of wrong evolved through a process of exclusion of other kinds of wrongs, i.e. criminal or moral wrongs. So the periphery of tort could be narrow down to civil wrong. Further not all civil wrongs are tort, but it becomes so only after the exclusion of breach of contract, breach of trust and other equitable obligations. As the periphery of tort is certain, it could be used as an argument in support of Winfield’s view. And to do this we have to ascertain the general principles of liabilities in tort.
Generally the essentials of tort are 1. Act or omission 2. Legal damage or injuria. In addition to this tortious liability is generally based on two premises; i.e. negligence in case of ordinary torts and intention or ill motive in cases of intentional torts such as assault, battery, malicious prosecution etc. here we can mention about the doctrine of’ prima facie tort’, developed in America, which could be used as a good support to Winfield’s view; as the theory provides for some general principles of liability for tort.
In the 19th century J. Holmes & Pollock developed this doctrine whereby intentional infliction of injury of any kind without justification was made actionable.
Prima facie tort theory: Under the prima facie tort doctrine, a wrong which does not fall within a traditional tort category may nevertheless be actionable if the wrongdoer without just cause or excuse has willfully and intentionally caused injury.
In the final decades of 19th century Pollock and Holmes proposed a general theory of intentional tort, known by the courts as prima facie tort doctrine. That summarized in simple proposition: the intentional infliction of injury without justification is actionable. Holmes & Pollock organized tort into three categories; i. cause of action based on intentional conduct, ii. Cause of action based on negligent conduct, iii. Cause of action based on strict liability.
Holmes saw prima facie tort not merely as another intentional tort, but as the general principle upon which rested all liability for intentional harm. So prima facie tort doctrine is regarded as imposing liability with respect only to conduct not otherwise actionable under any of the nominate torts.
In simple, the common law doctrine; that if a person had a legal right to engage in an activity, one injured thereby, had no cause of action against the actor, regardless of the motive prompting the actor. But this certainty of common law was abandoned by the American jurists with the development of prima facie tort doctrine.
In support of this we can mention the landmark decision of the New Mexico Supreme court in Schmitz v. Smentowski, whereby it was said that the prima facie tort is to provide a remedy when alleged conduct does not come within the intendment of one of the established classes of torts. The court also provided the elements of prima facie tort which are
i. an intentional lawful act by defendant,
ii. An intent to injure the plaintiff
iii. Injury to plaintiff
iv. Absence of justification.
These elements could be seen as the general principles of liability for tort. And if in a case these elements are satisfied the plaintiff can plead prima facie tort in alternative to other established torts. Pronouncement of this judgment provides sound support to Winfield’s concept of tort whereby we can assure some general principles of liability for tort cases. And there remains no need to fit every case of tort in one of those nominated pigeon holes.
Further the development of new torts can be used to support Winfield’s theory.
For example:-
i. the tort of inducement to a wife to leave her husband developed in Winsmore v. Greenbank
ii. Tort of deceit in its present form had its origin in Pasley v. Freeman.
iii. Tort of inducement of breach of contract had its origin in Lumley v. Gye.
iv. Tort of strict liability developed in Rylands v. Fletcher. Etc.
From the above mentioned cases it becomes clear that the law of tort is a developing subject and we can easily negate Salmond’s pigeon hole theory.
To conclude we can quote Holt, C.J. who while giving judgment in Asbhy v. white clearly favoured Winfield’s theory. He said that, if man will multiply injuries, action must be multiplied too, for every man who is injured ought to have recompense.
At last we should mention that Indian Judiciary also shown a favour to Winfield’s theory. In M.C. Mehta v. UOI Justice Bhagwati said --- “we have to evolve new principles and lay down new norms which will adequately deal with new problems which arise in a highly industrialized economy. We cannot allow our judicial thinking to be constricted by reference to the law as it prevails in England…. We are certainly prepared to receive light from whatever source it comes but we have to build our own jurisprudence.” In the same case the Supreme Court established the concept of absolute liability. (Source: ourlegalworld, legalservicesindia)
Thank you
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
