Category: Law of Torts

Smt. Nilabati Behera Alieas Lalita Behera Vs. State Of Orissa And Others


Supreme Court and the High Courts, being the protectors of the civil liberties of the citizen, have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to grant relief in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution to the victim or the heir of the victim whose fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are established to have been flagrantly infringed by calling upon the State to repair the damage done by its officers to the fundamental rights of the citizen, notwithstanding the right of the citizen to the remedy by way of a civil suit or criminal proceedings. The State, of course has the right to be indemnified by and take such action as may be available to it against the wrongdoer in accordance with law – through appropriate proceedings. Of course, relief in exercise of the power under Article 32 or 226 would be granted only once it is established that there has been an infringement of the fundamental rights of the citizen and no other form of appropriate redressal by the court in the facts and circumstances of the case, is possible.

Torts Law in the State of Florida

Title XLV TORTS Chapter 766 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND RELATED MATTERS 766.101 Medical review committee, immunity from liability. 766.1015 Civil immunity for members of or consultants to certain boards, committees, or other entities. 766.1016 Patient safety […]

Negligence as a tort

The jurisprudential concept of negligence defies any precise definition. Eminent jurists and leading judgments have assigned various meanings to negligence. The concept as has been acceptable to Indian jurisprudential thought is well-stated […]


Nuisance in any form as recognized in the law of Torts-whether private, public or common which results in affecting anyone’s personnel or/and property rights gives him a cause of action/right to seek […]

Grant of compensation

The principle of law as far as the grant of compensation is well settled. Compensation for damages suffered, especially pecuniary damages suffered by a claimant is normally “actual damages”. What is the […]


Under the Law of Torts, word negligent has been defined and Word ‘negligence’ is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Edition) “The failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably […]



it is clear that the respondent could not make a claim for damages. Section 53 disentitles an employee who has suffered an employment injury from receiving or recovering compensation or damages under the Workmen’s Compensation Act or any other law for the time being in force or otherwise. The use of the expression “or otherwise” would clearly indicate that this section is not limited to ousting the relief claimed only under any statute but the wordings of the section are such that an insured person would not be entitled to make a claim in Torts which has the force of law under the Employees Insurance Act. Even though the Employees Insurance Act is a beneficial legislation the Legislature Had thought it fit to prohibit an insured person from receiving or recovering compensation or damages under any other law, including Torts, in cases where the injury had been sustained by him is an employment injury.