Menu
keyboard_backspace
ask a question
Free Legal Advice
Selected {{UnlockArray.length}}

Q. Is intention relevant in every tort case?

Placeholder image

Anonymous

posted 7 months ago

Q.Is intention relevant in every tort case?
Hi,
II wnat to know the importance of INTENTION in tort case. Will be glad if you could provide some guidance. Thanks

Please do not provide your contact details here. We share your contact details on demand from the client.

Your Registration is Incomplete. Please Complete the Registration

Sorry, Your Profile is not activated.

Sorry, You can't respond to the Question as your account has been blocked.

Response is Required

Response should be with in 4294967295 characters

~ and ` characters are not allowed

Symbols are not allowed (Excluding #)

# Symbols is required

Kishan Dutt Kalaskar Retired Judge

Experience: 33 Year(s)

Responded 7 months ago

View All Answers

A. ) Dear Sir,
Yours is a wise decision, today or tomorrow she may again
try for suicide. Convince her through common friends and get mutual divorce.
Divorce by Mutual Consent Step by Step Procedure
Hindus: Under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, a husband and wife can file a mutual divorce only when they have lived apart for at least a year. The couple must jointly mention about inability to continue the marital relationship due to some unavoidable circumstances. Both the sides must voluntarily agree to dissolve the marriage. The filing of a mutual divorce by both the husband and the wife is termed as ‘the first motion’. A couple can file for a second motion after a gap of six months. This time span is provided to the couple so that they get time to reconsider their marriage. A divorce decree can be passed before the completion of the six months term if all the mandatory requirements are sufficed. If the divorce file is not withdrawn within 18 months,the court passes a divorce decree. In case one of the sides withdraws the petition,the court initiates to make an enquiry. If the concerned side disagrees to give the consent,the court holds no right to pass the judgment.

Reply is Required

Reply should be less than 4294967295 characters.

Helpful
Helpful
Share

Shanti Ranjan Behera

Experience: 22 Year(s)

Responded 7 months ago

View All Answers

A. ) Dear Sir,
Please have a look.
When dealing with tort litigation, it is important to be familiar with the elements that comprise a tort and how they are used in personal injury lawsuits. In order to prove that the defendant in a personal injury case is liable for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff, each of the elements of a tort must be present.
Difference between intentional tort and negligence tort.
The key difference between intentional torts and negligent torts is that the plaintiff must prove the additional element that the defendant acted with the specific intent to perform (i.e., acted with a mental state of intentionally performing) the act that was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.
Common Law intentional torts include the following:
• Assault.
• Battery.
• Conversion.
• False imprisonment.
• Trespass to land.
• Trespass to chattels (Personal property)
• Intentional infliction of emotional distress.
What are the 5 intentional torts?
Common intentional torts are battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
What is the common element of all intentional torts?
There are various types of intentional torts, each with its own elements. Typical intentional torts are: battery, assault, false imprisonment, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, invasion of privacy, trespass, and conversion.
Shanti Ranjan Behera
Advocate

Reply is Required

Reply should be less than 4294967295 characters.

Helpful
Helpful
Share

Manjula Shanmugasundaram

Experience: 18 Year(s)

Responded 7 months ago

View All Answers

A. ) Intention, generally speaking, is irrelevant in torts. The exception being malicious prosecution. You need to prove the damage suffered by you and the liability of the defendant, as in, his actions leading up to your damage. The actions need not be intended to lead up to it.

Reply is Required

Reply should be less than 4294967295 characters.

Helpful
Helpful
Share

Abhimanyu Shandilya

Experience: 14 Year(s)

Responded 7 months ago

View All Answers

A. ) I do not think that intention has such a huge role to play in tort cases. Intention plays a vital role in criminal jurisprudence and presence and absence of intention can make or mar the criminal case. In civil matters intention can be a supporting element which helps in understanding the cause of action and ultimately the civil liability. having said that a question worth mentioning is important. Is presence or absence of intention important for civil jurisprudence? The answer is it depends and is also debatable.

As far as civil jurisprudence and civil liability is concerned the absence of intention will not affect the outcome of the case. In civil matters it is about the legal right of a person and the damages that one can seek for breach of his legal rights.

Regardless of whether the breaching party or the suffering party having any sort of intention the suffering party will be eligible to get his due legal rights. Once the legal right has been established then the intention does not play part in the adjudication of civil cases.

The intention part is civil cases will come into the picture in those cases where the legal rights of a person is not clear due to the ambiguity in the action or document. This can be understood with an example wherein the a will has been made where the will maker wrote the will in a manner that one of the legal heirs’ inheritance is not as clear as the others. In this case the court may take cognizance of the intention of the will maker to arrive, conclusively, at the legal right of the sufferer.

As said earlier once the legal right is established then it is meaningless to look for intention of the parties.

Similar to Civil law the intention does not play a major role in cases of Torts. Lets say that a party has filed a case against another as the first party suffered a damage from the second party’s pet. Regardless of the fact whether the second party had the intention to harm the first party or not his liability to pay the compensation to first party is established. Yes the presence of intention to cause harm to first party will make the case stronger in favour of the first party but the absence of it will not make it weaker.

Reply is Required

Reply should be less than 4294967295 characters.

Helpful
Helpful
Share
Talk to a Lawyer
Post Your Matter
Request Callback
Contact Us