CAPACITY : LAW OF TORT

by

Introduction

In the law of tort, capacity refers to a person’s legal ability to sue or be sued for a wrongful act. It determines whether an individual or entity can bring a claim or be held liable for damages. Capacity varies based on factors such as age, mental competence, corporate status, and governmental immunity. Minors, individuals with mental disabilities, corporations, and government bodies may have special rules governing their capacity in tort law. Understanding capacity ensures fairness in legal proceedings, as it considers whether a party has the necessary legal standing and comprehension to be held responsible for tortious acts.

  1. Act of state
  2. Corporation
  3. Minor
  4. Independent and joint tortfeasors
  5. Husband and Wife
  6. Person having parental and quasi- parental authority
  7. Person having judicial and executive authority

1.ACT OF STATE

An Act of State refers to an action taken by a sovereign authority or government that cannot be challenged in a court of law, even if it results in harm to individuals. It is a doctrine that grants immunity to the state for certain acts performed in the exercise of its sovereign powers, particularly in matters of foreign policy, war, or public administration. This principle is rooted in the idea that courts cannot question or adjudicate upon acts done in furtherance of state policy or national interest.

Essentials of Act of State

  1. Sovereign Authority – The act must be performed by or under the direction of a sovereign authority, such as the government or its agencies.
  2. Public Interest or State Policy – The act should be carried out in furtherance of state policy, national security, or public welfare.
  3. Non-Justiciability – Courts generally do not have the power to review or provide remedies for an act of state, as it involves political or governmental discretion.
  4. Foreign Affairs or War – Many acts of state arise in the context of international relations, war, or occupation of foreign territories.
  5. Absence of Private Rights Violation – While an act of state may cause harm, it is not typically considered a violation of individual legal rights if done lawfully within sovereign powers.

Important Case Laws

  1. Nabob of Arcot v. East India Company (1793) – Established that acts performed by a ruling authority in sovereign capacity could not be questioned in municipal courts.
  2. Burmah Oil Co. v. Lord Advocate (1965) – The British government was held liable for the destruction of property during wartime, but Parliament later overturned the decision by enacting the War Damage Act 1965.
  3. Kendrick v. Minister of Civil Aviation (1947) – Held that governmental acts taken in the interest of national security were immune from tort liability.
  4. Secretary of State for India v. Hari Bhanji (1882) – Recognized that acts done by government officers in a sovereign capacity were protected from legal action.
  5. State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962) – Distinguished between sovereign and non-sovereign functions, ruling that the state can be held liable for torts committed in a non-sovereign capacity.

The doctrine of Act of State plays a crucial role in limiting governmental liability, ensuring that courts do not interfere with sovereign functions while balancing the rights of individuals against state immunity.

2.CORPORATION

A corporation is considered a legal person in tort law, meaning it can sue and be sued for wrongful acts. It is liable for torts committed by its agents or employees under the principle of vicarious liability, provided the acts were committed in the course of employment.

Key Principles:

  1. Vicarious Liability – A corporation is responsible for the torts of its employees if committed within the scope of their employment.
  2. Direct Liability – If a corporation’s own actions (e.g., negligence, fraud) cause harm, it can be held liable.
  3. Corporate Veil – In exceptional cases, courts may “pierce the corporate veil” to hold directors or shareholders personally liable.

Important Case Laws:

  1. Salmond v. Salmond & Co. (1897) – Established the principle of separate legal personality, meaning a company is distinct from its members.
  2. Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v. Securities Commission (1995) – Defined how corporate liability arises through the acts of employees.
  3. State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidyawati (1962) – Established that even government corporations can be held liable for torts like private entities.
  4. H.L. Bolton (Engineering) Co. Ltd. v. T.J. Graham & Sons Ltd. (1957) – Stated that a company’s employees and directors act as its “brain” and “hands,” making their actions attributable to the company.
  5. Daimler Co. Ltd v. Continental Tyre and Rubber Co. (1916) – Demonstrated piercing the corporate veil in cases of fraud.

3.Minor

Capacity to sue

The capacity to sue for a minor refers to their legal ability to initiate a lawsuit, which is generally restricted due to their lack of full legal capacity. Since minors are considered legally incapable of managing their own affairs, they cannot directly file a lawsuit in their name. Instead, a legal representative, such as a parent, guardian, or a “next friend” (also called a litigation friend in some jurisdictions), must act on their behalf. This ensures that the minor’s interests are properly represented and protected in legal proceedings. However, once the minor reaches the age of majority, they gain full capacity to sue in their own name. In certain cases, such as claims related to personal injury, the statute of limitations may be extended until the minor reaches adulthood, allowing them to file a lawsuit after becoming legally competent

Pre- natal injuries


Pre-natal injuries refer to harm suffered by a child before birth due to negligence, medical malpractice, or other wrongful acts. These injuries can result from factors such as inadequate maternal care, medical errors during pregnancy, or external trauma affecting the fetus. In legal terms, a child who is born alive may have the right to sue for injuries sustained before birth. A significant case in this area is Montreal Tramways Co. v. Léveillé (1933), where the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that a child could sue for pre-natal injuries if they were born alive. In this case, a pregnant woman was injured in a tram accident, and her child, born with disabilities linked to the accident, successfully claimed compensation. This case established an important precedent, affirming that legal rights can extend to individuals for harm suffered in the womb, provided they are born alive.

Capacity to be sued
The capacity to be sued for minors refers to their legal ability to be defendants in a lawsuit. Since minors lack full legal capacity, they cannot defend themselves in court directly. Instead, a legal representative, such as a parent, guardian, or court-appointed guardian ad litem, must act on their behalf. Courts take special care in cases involving minors to ensure their rights are protected throughout legal proceedings.
Liability of parents for children’s torts
The liability of parents for children’s torts refers to the legal responsibility parents may have for wrongful acts committed by their minor children. Generally, parents are not automatically liable for their child’s torts, as liability depends on factors such as negligence in supervision, failure to control a child known to be dangerous, or specific laws imposing parental responsibility. Some jurisdictions have parental liability statutes that hold parents financially accountable for certain damages caused by their children.

4. Independent and joint tortfeasors ( composite tortfeasors)


Independent Tortfeasors
These are individuals or entities whose separate and distinct wrongful acts cause the same damage to the victim, but they act independently of each other. The harm suffered by the victim results from multiple, unrelated actions rather than a single coordinated effort. Each tortfeasor is liable only for the damage caused by their own actions.

Case Law: Lamb v. Camden LBC (1981)

In Lamb v. Camden London Borough Council, the defendant council negligently caused flooding in the plaintiff’s house, which led to the premises being vacated. Later, squatters entered and caused further damage. The court held that the council was not liable for the independent actions of the squatters, as their actions were separate from the original negligence.

This case illustrates the principle of independent tortfeasors, where different parties contribute to the damage independently rather than acting together.

Joint tortfeasors

Joint tortfeasors are two or more persons who act together to commit a wrongful act or whose separate wrongful acts contribute to the same damage in such a way that they share liability. In such cases, the injured party can sue any one or all of the tortfeasors, and each may be held liable for the entire damage.

Case Law: Brook v. Bool (1928)

In Brook v. Bool, two defendants were searching for a gas leak in a property. One of them negligently struck a match, causing an explosion that injured the plaintiff. Since both were engaged in a common venture and their actions contributed to the harm, they were held to be joint tortfeasors, meaning each was fully liable for the damages.

This case highlights the principle that when parties act together or contribute to the same harm in a connected manner, they are jointly responsible.

5.Husband and wife
Action Between Spouses in the Law of Torts

At common law, the doctrine of spousal immunity originally prevented one spouse from suing the other in tort. This was based on the legal fiction that marriage made the spouses a single legal entity. However, this principle has been abolished or modified in many jurisdictions, allowing spouses to sue each other for personal injuries and other torts.

Case Law: McCullough v. Godwin (1957)

In McCullough v. Godwin, the court held that a wife could sue her husband for negligence in a car accident. This case demonstrated the shift away from spousal immunity, recognizing that spouses have independent legal rights and can bring tort actions against each other.

Today, many legal systems allow tort claims between spouses, especially in cases of personal injury, domestic violence, or property disputes. However, some jurisdictions may still impose restrictions based on public policy considerations.
Husband’s Liability for Wife’s Tort

Under common law, there was a historical principle that a husband could be held liable for his wife’s torts. This was based on the outdated legal doctrine of coverture, which treated a married woman’s legal identity as merged with her husband’s. However, this principle has been abolished in modern legal systems, and spouses are now treated as separate legal entities.

Historical Perspective:

  1. Coverture Doctrine: In early English law, a husband was responsible for his wife’s wrongful acts because she had no independent legal personality. If a wife committed a tort, the husband could be sued alongside her.
  2. Marital Unity: Courts justified this rule by claiming that a wife acted under the “influence and protection” of her husband.

Modern Legal Position:

  1. Abolition of Coverture: Today, in most legal systems, a wife is personally liable for her own torts, and the husband is not automatically responsible.
  2. Exceptions: A husband may still be liable if:

The wife committed the tort under his direction or authority (vicarious liability).

They were joint tortfeasors (i.e., both acted together to commit the wrongful act).

The tort occurred in the course of a shared business or partnership where he has a legal duty.

Case Law: Broom v. Morgan (1953)

In Broom v. Morgan, a wife, working as an employee in a business owned by her husband, negligently injured another worker. The court held that the husband was liable as an employer, not because of their marital status. This case highlights that modern liability is based on legal relationships rather than marriage.

6.Persons having paternal or quasi – parental authority


Persons with parental or quasi-parental authority are individuals who have legal or assumed responsibility for the care, control, and supervision of a child or dependent. This authority may arise from natural parenthood, legal guardianship, or situations where an individual acts in a parental role without formal legal status.

Categories of Such Persons:

  1. Parents – Biological or adoptive parents have primary parental authority over their children, including the duty to provide care, discipline, and protection.
  2. Guardians – Court-appointed individuals who have legal custody and responsibility for a minor or incapacitated person.
  3. Foster Parents – Those who care for children temporarily under government or agency supervision.
  4. Teachers and School Authorities – While not parents, they act in a loco parentis (in place of a parent) capacity during school hours, exercising control and discipline over students.
  5. Relatives or Caregivers – Grandparents, older siblings, or other relatives who assume responsibility for a child’s welfare in the absence of parents.

Legal Liability and Responsibilities:

Duty of Care: They must ensure the safety and well-being of the child under their supervision.

Liability for Torts: In some cases, parents or guardians may be held liable for a child’s wrongful acts, especially if negligence in supervision is proven.

Disciplinary Rights: They may impose reasonable discipline, but excessive punishment can lead to legal consequences.

Case Law: R v. Gibbins and Proctor (1918)

In this case, a father and his partner were convicted of murder for starving his child to death. The court ruled that both had a duty to care for the child, establishing that quasi-parental authority comes with legal responsibility for the dependent’s welfare.

7.Persons Having Judicial and Executive Authority

Individuals with judicial or executive authority are those vested with legal powers to interpret, enforce, and administer laws within a jurisdiction. Their authority arises from constitutional, statutory, or delegated powers, ensuring law and order, justice, and governance.

  1. Judicial Authority:

Persons with judicial authority have the power to interpret and apply the law, resolve disputes, and administer justice.

Examples:

Judges: Preside over courts, interpret laws, and issue rulings.

Magistrates: Handle lower court matters, including minor criminal and civil cases.

Tribunal Members: Decide on specialized legal issues (e.g., employment or tax disputes).

Case Law: Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works (1863)

The court held that even administrative bodies exercising judicial powers must follow principles of natural justice, emphasizing the fairness of judicial authority.

  1. Executive Authority:

Persons with executive authority are responsible for enforcing laws, implementing policies, and maintaining public administration.

Examples:

President/Prime Minister: Head of state/government, responsible for policy implementation.

Ministers & Government Officials: Oversee departments and execute laws.

Police Officers: Enforce law and maintain public order.

Administrative Officers: Carry out governmental functions and regulatory enforcement.

Case Law: Ram Jawaya Kapoor v. State of Punjab (1955)

The Indian Supreme Court held that the executive cannot exceed its authority and must function within the limits of the Constitution, reinforcing the separation of powers.

Leave a Comment