Under the law of torts one can sue the other for damages ensuing from violation of legal right in one person and violation of legal duty by the other. One can not be held liable for violation of Social or Moral duties. Generally, a person is liable for those wrong on his part which he intends to bring about or which resulted due to negligent act on his part.
Thus these liabilities are liabilities based on fault. But there is an exception to this general rule in the doctrine of Strict Liability i.e. Liability without fault or no fault liability. As per this theory wrongdoer will be held liable for the consequences of his acts even though he has been vigilant enough while doing the act or even though there is no negligence on his part or even if there is no intention on his part to bring the result ensued.
There are two theories of liability under the law of torts. These two theories take into consideration two different questions. In the words of Salmond,
Does the law of torts consists of fundamental general principle that it is wrongful to cause harm to another person in the absence of some specific ground of justification or excuse,
ADVERTISEMENTS:
or does it consists of a number of specific rules prohibiting certain kind of harmful activity, and leaving all the resign due outside the sphere of legal responsibility.
It raises two theories, law of tort and law of torts,
Law of tort, it implies that every wrong doing which can’t be justified or excused by the law should be treated as a tort. In other words the aggrieved party has to see whether wrong/damage caused to him can be justified under the law, if not then the aggrieved party can sue the wrongdoer, without considering whether the wrong has been covered under particular name like nuisance, negligence Winfield is the supporter of this theory and declares this branch of law as law of tort. This theory does not believe in enlistment of wrongs, but let the caused wrong to find their remedy in case they are unjustified one.
Law of torts, this theory implies that this branch of law consists of some specified wrongs only. There is no liability for the wrongs which are not covered by any specified categories Salmond has supported this theory. This theory is also known as pigeon hole theory.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Thus if A commits a wrong against B then under this theory A should look whether any pigeon hole or specified category is available to cover his claim. In case no pigeon hole “is there to cover his claim, Alcan not be made liable for the wrongs committed against B.” Salmond’s theory appears based on principle of berkelium bijous. In the current scenario, former view appears more relevant, law ever enjoy its own feature of equity good conscience to result in justice. Closed/Narrowly opened door for remedy amounts to a welcome signal for wrongs.