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

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.

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.