Law of Torts

Sherbert v. Verner (1963): Case Summary & the Sherbert Test

374 U.S. 398 (1963)

Sherbert v. Verner (1963) is the US Supreme Court case that strengthened religious freedom under the First Amendment. Adell Sherbert, a Seventh-day Adventist, was denied unemployment benefits for refusing to work on her Saturday Sabbath. The Court (7-2) ruled for her and created the "Sherbert test": the government must show a compelling interest, pursued by the least restrictive means, before it can substantially burden religious practice.

Case Summary: Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly & Co.

73 N.Y.2d 487 (1989)

Because the anti-miscarriage drug DES was sold generically by many makers, women injured in utero decades earlier could not identify which company made the pills their mothers took. In Hymowitz (1989, Wachtler C.J.) the New York Court of Appeals adopted a DES-specific national market-share liability: each defendant pays its share of the national DES market, liability is several only (not joint), and a maker cannot escape by proving it did not make the particular pill — it can exculpate only by showing it never marketed DES for pregnancy. The Court also upheld New York's statute reviving time-barred DES claims.

Case Summary: Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories 1980

26 Cal.3d 588, 607 P.2d 924 (1980)

Explore the landmark Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories 1980 case, pivotal in establishing market share liability in product liability law. Learn more now!

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak, 1987): Case Summary

(1987) 1 SCC 395; AIR 1987 SC 1086

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), the "Oleum Gas Leak" case, is where the Supreme Court created the rule of absolute liability. After oleum gas leaked from Shriram Food and Fertilizers' Delhi plant — just months after the Bhopal disaster — the Court held that an enterprise carrying on a hazardous activity is absolutely liable for any harm if a dangerous substance escapes, with none of the exceptions allowed under the older strict-liability rule, and that compensation must reflect the enterprise's size to deter wrongdoing.

Rylands v. Fletcher (1868): Case Summary & Strict Liability

(1868) LR 3 HL 330

Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) is the foundation of strict liability in tort. A reservoir built on Rylands' land burst through old mine shafts and flooded Fletcher's coal mine. Even though Rylands was not negligent, the House of Lords held him liable — establishing that someone who brings a dangerous thing onto their land in a "non-natural" use keeps it at their peril and is liable if it escapes and causes harm. In India it later evolved into the stricter rule of absolute liability.

Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932): Case Brief & Summary

[1932] UKHL 100; [1932] AC 562; 1932 SC (HL) 31

How a decomposed snail in a bottle of ginger beer led the House of Lords, in 1932, to create the modern law of negligence — establishing Lord Atkin's "neighbour principle" and the duty of care a manufacturer owes its consumers, a foundation still followed by Indian courts today.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED): Elements and Cases

Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) lets a person recover for severe emotional distress caused intentionally or recklessly by extreme and outrageous conduct. Here are the four elements, what counts as outrageous, the First Amendment limits, and how negligent infliction (NIED) differs.

False Imprisonment: Elements, Examples, and the Shopkeeper's Privilege

False imprisonment is intentionally confining someone within fixed boundaries without consent or legal justification. Here are the elements, the shopkeeper's privilege, the leading cases, how the crime differs from the tort, and what to do if it happened to you.

Negligence Per Se: Elements, Excuses, Cases and Examples

Negligence per se treats a defendant's unexcused violation of a safety statute as negligence, if the statute was meant to protect people like the plaintiff from that kind of harm. Here are the elements, the excuses, the leading cases, and how states differ.

Comparative vs. Contributory Negligence: How Fault Affects Recovery

Under contributory negligence, an injured person who was even slightly at fault recovers nothing. Under comparative negligence, their damages are reduced by their share of the fault. Here is how pure and modified comparative negligence work, which jurisdictions still use contributory negligence, and worked examples.

Assault vs. Battery: The Difference in Tort and Criminal Law

Assault is causing someone to expect an imminent harmful or offensive touching; battery is the touching itself. Here is how the two differ in tort law and criminal law, the leading cases, and what to do if it happened to you.

Res Ipsa Loquitur: Meaning, Elements, Cases and Examples

Res ipsa loquitur ("the thing speaks for itself") lets a jury infer negligence when an accident would not ordinarily happen without someone's carelessness and the defendant is the one responsible. Here are the elements, the leading cases, and how it works in court and on exams.

Difference Between Civil Law and Criminal Law (With Examples)

Civil law resolves private disputes and awards compensation; criminal law punishes wrongs against society. This India-focused guide compares their purpose, who starts the case, the standard of proof, procedure and outcomes, with examples.

Essential Elements of Tort: Meaning, Elements & Case Laws

The essential elements of a tort are a wrongful act or omission, legal damage and a legal remedy. This guide explains them with the key maxims, the four elements of negligence, and landmark Indian case laws.

What is the Doctrine of Absolute Liability in Indian Tort Law?

Absolute liability is the Indian no-fault doctrine laid down in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (the Oleum gas leak case): an enterprise in a hazardous activity is liable for any harm it causes, with none of the exceptions that apply to strict liability under Rylands v. Fletcher.