Law and You > Law of Tort > Distinguishing Tort From Other Wrongs

A tort may be defined as a civil wrong independent of contract, for which the appropriate remedy is an action for damage. Tort is not a breach of contract. The law of torts is regarded as “an instrument for making people adhere to standards of reasonable behaviour and respect the rights and interests of one another”.  This is achieved by securing interests and ensuring in cases when a person whose protected interest is compromised can recover damages from the person who has breached the same person for the damage suffered by him. For any wrongful act to be a tort there shall be present three constituents. First, there shall be a wrongful act, secondly, there shall be legal damage arising out of the wrongful act. Lastly, there shall be a legal remedy in form of damages arising from the wrongful act. In this article let us study difference between tort and other wrongs.

Distinguishing between a Tort and a Crime:

Torts	Crime
A tort is a species of a civil wrong; In tort private legal rights are violated; it gives rise to civil proceedings.	Crimes are those which result into punishment of the criminal. It gives rise to criminal proceedings.
In tort, the plaintiff is the injured party.	In crime, the victim is an individual. The criminal proceedings against the wrong-doer are instituted by the State.
A tort is a violation of the private rights of an individual.	A crime is a breach of public rights and duties which affect the whole community.
The wrong-doer is liable to pay compensation to the injured party.	The wrong-doer is generally punished. Sometimes the fine is imposed. But that fine amount is credited into the State account.
The purpose of awarding compensation to the injured party is to make good the loss suffered by him.	The purpose of the criminal law is to protect society by preventing and deterring the offender from committing further offenses.
The nature of punishment is lighter, that too in the shape of awarding damages.	The nature of punishment is heavy and serious, in the shape of imprisonment.
In tort, the intention is not an important factor.	In crime, mens rea (ill-intention) plays an important factor in determining criminal liability.
Mens rea has no place in tort.	Generally, an act shall not be punished as a crime, unless there is mens rea actually present in the wrong-doer.
The wrong-doers of torts are punished by way of damages for the better social welfare and efficiency.	unscrupulousness. They are treated as morally depraved, aggravated heinous and dangerous to the individuals and also to the society.
The principles of “Injuria sine damnum”,  “Damnum sign injuria”, “Vicarious Liability”, “Respondent Superior”, “Absolute Liability”, “Precautionary Principle”, “Polluter Pays’, “Principle”, etc., are recognized in the Law of Torts.	In majority criminal cases, these principles are not adopted in criminal law.
The burden of proof lies on the complainant injured.	The burden of proof lies on the State. The injured becomes a witness only.
Natural Principles of Justice, a good conscience, equality, etc., are followed in fixing the wrong­doer’s liability.	Strict rules of procedure and principles or followed in fixing the liability of the criminal.
. Most of the Law of Torts is judge-made-law, it is not codified.	All the crimes are defined and codified. Criminal Law is codified.
It is the latest subject.	it was the oldest law
The offenses under the torts do not involve any element of moral turpitude	The offenses defined under the criminal law are notorious for moral

Distinguishing between a Torts and a Breach of Contract

Torts	Breach of Contract
In the case of tort, damages are always unliquidated, or unascertained and invariably they are not, and in fact, cannot be actual.	In case of breach of contract injured party has right only for liquidated damages, i.e. pre-settled or actual damages.
A tort is a violation of a right in rem.	A breach of contract is an infringement of a right in personam,
In tort, the duty is imposed by the law and is owed to the community at large.	The duty violated, in the case of a breach of contract, is a specific duty owed by either party to the other alone. It does not owe to the community at large.
Sometimes, in tort, the motive is an essential factor to determine the liability, e.g. Malicious prosecution	In breach of contract, the motive is not an essential factor. The defaulting party has to pay the pre-settled and actual damages
Law relating to tort has not been codified. It is judge-made law.	Law relating to the contract has been codified.
In tort, a person injured may be entitled to such damages which he has not actually suffered.	In breach of contract, the party is entitled only for actual damages.
. Exemplary or vindictive damages are awarded ‘ in tort	Exemplary or vindictive damages are not awarded in the breach of contract, except in an action for breach of promise of marriage.
The factors do not affect on the action of tort.	No compensation is paid in cases of contracts induced by fraud, misrepresentation, mistake, coercion or undue influence.

Distinguishing between Tort and Breach of Contract:

Tort and quasi-contract are two distinct legal concepts, each serving different purposes and governed by different principles.

Tort	Breach of Contract
A tort is a civil wrong that causes harm or loss to another person, resulting in legal liability for the party responsible. It is primarily concerned with providing remedies for wrongful acts that cause injury or damage.	A quasi-contract is not a true contract but a legal construct imposed by a court to prevent unjust enrichment. It arises when one party benefits at the expense of another without an actual agreement, often to ensure fairness
Torts involve wrongful acts, either intentional or negligent, that result in harm to another party. The focus is on the conduct of the wrongdoer.	There is no wrongful act involved in a quasi-contract. Instead, it addresses situations where one party unfairly benefits from another’s loss, even in the absence of a formal agreement.
Tort law is based on principles of fault, accountability, and liability for causing harm. It seeks to provide compensation to victims for their injuries or losses.	Quasi-contract law is based on principles of equity and preventing unjust enrichment. It aims to restore fairness and ensure that one party does not unjustly benefit at the expense of another.
The primary remedy in tort cases is damages (monetary compensation) awarded to the injured party.	Remedies in quasi-contract cases may involve restitution, where the court orders the unjustly enriched party to compensate the other party for the benefit received.
Example: Common examples include negligence (e.g., car accidents), intentional torts (e.g., assault), and defamation,	Example: An example of a quasi-contract might be when someone provides services (like emergency medical treatment) to another person who is unable to consent, and the court determines that the provider should be compensated even without a formal agreement.

Distinguishing between Tort and Bailment:

Tort and bailment are two distinct legal concepts that address different types of legal relationships and responsibilities.

Tort	Bailment
A tort is a civil wrong that causes harm or loss to another person, resulting in legal liability. It encompasses a wide range of wrongful acts, either intentional or negligent, that result in injury or damage.	Bailment is a legal relationship where the owner of a tangible personal property (the bailor) temporarily transfers possession of that property to another party (the bailee) for a specific purpose, with the expectation that the property will be returned.
In tort law, the relationship is typically between a wrongdoer (the tortfeasor) and the injured party (the victim). The focus is on the wrongful act and its consequences.	The relationship in bailment is contractual in nature, even if it is not formalized. It is based on mutual agreement and the purpose of caring for or using the bailed property.
Tort law is grounded in principles of accountability, fault, and liability for harm caused by one’s actions. It seeks to compensate victims for injuries or losses.	The law of bailment is based on the duties and responsibilities that arise from the possession of another’s property. It defines the obligations of the bailee toward the bailed property.
The duty in tort law is to avoid causing harm to others. The focus is on the conduct of the tortfeasor and whether they acted with negligence or intent to cause harm.	The bailee has a duty to take reasonable care of the bailed property, and the standard of care may vary depending on the type of bailment (gratuitous, mutual benefit, or for the sole benefit of the bailor).
Remedies in tort cases typically involve monetary damages awarded to the injured party to compensate for their losses.	Remedies in bailment cases may involve the return of the property or compensation for any loss or damage to the bailed property due to the bailee’s failure to exercise proper care.
Example: Examples include negligence (like a car accident), intentional torts (like assault), and defamation.	Example: An example of bailment would be leaving your car with a valet service (the valet is the bailee), or storing goods in a warehouse (the warehouse operator is the bailee).

Distinguishing Between Law of Torts and Consumer Protection Act, 1986:

Law of Torts	Consumer Protection Act
In case of tort, damages are always unliquidated, or unascertained and invariably they are not, and in fact, cannot be actual.	In the case of CP Act, 1986, the aggrieved consumer has the right only for liquidated damages, i.e., pre-settled or actual damages. The damages can be ascertained by the redressal agencies.
A tort is a violation of a right in rem,	in case of this Act, the injury or loss is caused to the consumer, and it is the violation of a right in personam.
The philosophy of law of torts is a new subject and formulated into a separate branch just from the beginning of 20th Century.	The consumer awareness, consumerism, the rights of consumers are formulated into a separate department of law is a very fresh subject, and formulated into a separate department and branch of law just twenty years ago.
In tort, the duty is one imposed by the law and is owed to the community at large. This principle is known as “Respondeat Superior”.	In consumerism also, the duty is one imposed by the law but is owed to the seller/manufacturer/trader. The principle of this duty is known as “Caveat venditor”.
Sometimes, in tort, the motive is an essential factor to determine the liability, e.g., Malicious prosecution, defamation, etc	In consumerism, the motive is not an essential factor. The defaulting party, i.e. the seller/trader/manufacturer has to pay the cost of the goods or services or to replace with new defect-free goods or actual damages, without inquiry about his motive.
Law relating to tort has not been codified. It is judge-made law.	Even though consumer law is a fresh one, but it is codified
In tort, a person may be entitled to such damages which he has not actually suffered. (Injuria sine damnum.).	In consumer law, the consumer is entitled only for actual damages or replacement of new goods or services.
Exemplary or vindictive damages are awarded in tort.	Generally, actual damages are awarded to the consumers. In exceptional cases where the seller acts in bad faith and negligently, then exemplary or vindictive damages may also be awarded.
Separate courts are not yet established. In the ordinary civil and criminal courts, the cases of torts are also enquired.	Separate consumer disputes redressal agencies are established in India, one at National level – National Commission, second is at State level – State Commission, and the third District level – District Forum.
The complainant should pay the court fee advocate’s fee, etc.	There is no court-fee or advocate’s fee.
Generally, only the aggrieved party shall have to file the petition. In exceptional circumstances, the public interest litigation is allowed in a limited extent. Now in environmental law coupled with torts, PIL is highly prevalent.	Public interest litigation is allowed. Third parties can also file the complaints on behalf of the aggrieved consumers.
The inquiry is conducted for a long time.	The inquiry shall have to be concluded by the redressal agencies within the prescribed time, as prescribed by the Act.
The proceedings are conducted as per the rigid legal principles, procedures, and principles, and also followed natural justice.	The proceedings are conducted in a simple and speedway. Legal procedures are not followed. Principles of natural justice may also not be taken into consideration.
The Courts enquiring the tort cases are purely judicial bodies.	The consumer disputes redressal agencies are not judicial bodies. They are quasi-judicial bodies.
The Judge or a group of Justices enquire and decide the tort cases. He or they shall possess excellent legal knowledge and have previous experience in the judiciary.	The President and Members enquire and decide the cases. All of them need not possess the legal skills and experience. Only the President is appointed from the line of the judiciary. Remaining Members are taken from public life, belonging to various walks of human life. They shall be persons of ability, integrity, and standing, and have adequate knowledge or experience of, or have shown capacity in dealing with, problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration.
There is no compulsory condition that a woman shall be appointed as a member.	The Act, 1986 imposes mandatory instruction that one woman must be appointed as one of the Members of the consumer disputes redressal agencies.
In cases of torts, the Courts interpret the laws beyond their legal provisions and consider the humanitarian values more. Thus they search new principles in awarding damages to the victims. All the environmental pollution cases are evolved from the law of torts only.	In consumer cases, the redressal agencies follow mercantile principles only. No doubt, consumer laws are evolved from the law of torts. But they are brought into strict principles and rules. The redressal agencies cannot go beyond such rules. However, in cases, where the consumer cases are connected with torts, the courts evolve new principles. Example: Medical consumer cases.

For More Articles on the Law of Tort Click Here

For More Articles on Different Acts, Click Here