INTRODUCTION
The word ‘Tort’ has been derived from a Latin word ‘Tortum’ which means crooked or twisted act. This word is a French equivalent of English word wrong and of the Roman law term ‘delict’. It is a civil wrong independent of contract for which the appropriate remedy is action for unliquidated damages. Person committing a tort is called tortfeasor and the act is called tortious act. In this piece of research project, we will analyze which one is more authentic or valid, whether law tort or law of torts. Jurists have debated this question for a long time. It is generally asked in the form, “is there a law of tort or only a law of torts?” Those who call it Law of Tort (Winfield) base their understanding on the Latin maxim ‘ubi …show more content…
Gye (1853) 2 E & B 21: Lumley v Gye is a foundational English tort law case, heard in 1853, in the field of economic tort. It was held that a person may claim damages from a third person who interferes in the fulfillment of a contract by another. Having the same facts is Lumley v Wagner, where Mr. Lumley successfully secured an injunction from Ms. Wagner against performing for Mr. Gye further. Frederick Gye, who ran Covent Garden Theatre, induced the singer Johanna Wanger to break her contract with Mr. Lumley and promised her to pay more. Though an injunction was issued to stop her singing at Covent Garden, Gye persuaded her to disregard it. Lumley hence sued Gye for damage of the income he had lost. Crompton J held that Lumley could claim damages from Gye. He said that though according to the general law is there is no action, by then it was clear that a claim lay for wrongfully and maliciously enticing a person to break their contract with …show more content…
Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330: Early English common law in many a time, imposed liability on those who had caused harm regardless of wrongful intent or negligence. Trespass was used to be considered as a remedy for all tortious wrongs .However, over the centuries, judges started focusing more on the intent and negligence behind the actions than the nature of the actions which lead to the development of negligence and trespass. At the time of Rylands v. Fletcher, the previous case relied upon was Vaughan v Menlove, decided in the Court of Common Pleas in 1837. The case is one of the best attempts of early 19th Century English judges to build up the law of negligence. The outcome of the case meant that judges would impose strict liability on defendants who accumulated dangerous things on their land without the need to prove negligence or wrongful intent. The decision won support for bringing the law relating to private reservoirs up to standard with the law relating to public reservoirs, which contained similar statutory provisions with regards to a pair of private Acts of Parliament passed in 1853 and