TOPIC :

MENTAL ELEMENT IN TORTS

SUBMITTED BY:

MEGHANA GADE

190401417016

BA. LLB (Hons.)

Batch of 2019-24

Under the Supervision of:

Dr. Heena Patoli

Alliance School of Law

Alliance University, Bangalore

Date of Submission: 31/03/2020

1
 ABSTRACT

A tort is constituted due to the occurrence of a “wrongful act or omission” by any person.
Now, a Tortious Liability may arise if a person causes any injury related to the plaintiff’s life,
property, reputation, or from the breach of duty primarily fixed by law, such duty is towards
persons generally and its breach is generally redressable by an action for unliquidated
damages.

This liability is civil in nature. In law of tort, the existence of mens rea is dependent upon the
circumstances and facts of each case.

This project aims to explore the concepts of intention, motive, malice, negligence,
recklessness and fault to understand how far the mental element is essential in determining
the tortious liability.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS PAGE NO.

1. Introduction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4-6
1.1.Introduction
1.2.Research Problem
1.3.Objectives
1.4.Literature Review
1.5.Methodology
1.6.Sources of Study
1.7.Table of Cases
2. Motive - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7-9
2.1.Exceptions
3. Intention - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 10-13
3.1.Intention and Motive
3.2.Malice
3.3.Exceptions to Malice
4. Negligence & Recklessness - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14-15
5. Conclusion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16

References - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17

3
 CHAPTER- I

1.1. INTRODUCTION:
“It is the act and not the motive for the act that must be regarded. If the act, apart
from the motive, gives rise merely to damage with legal injury, the motive, however,
reprehensible it may be, will not supplement that element” – Salmond
To understand the role mental element plays in tort law, we must first analyse the
terms Intention, Motive, Malice, Negligence and Recklessness. These are the terms
associated with the Mental Element in torts.
In Tort Law, Motive is a person’s state of mind which actually inspires him to do an
act. Motive is generally irrelevant in tort law, just like intention. Motive leads to the
formation of intent. Further, it was held by the Honourable Indian courts that if the act
is lawful, then the motive for the act is of little significance.
Now, Tort may be Intentional or Unintentional. According to Tort law, the liability
may be incurred irrespective of whether the injury was intentionally or accidentally
inflicted. Malice is loosely associated with bad motive or is synonymous with spite or
ill-will. In the legal sense, it means causing damage or injury intentionally. Malice
becomes relevant in determining liability when the act is otherwise unlawful and
wrongful intention can be gathered from the facts and situation presented in the case.
Defined in terms of purpose, intention is clearly distinguishable from Recklessness in
its core sense is commonly conceptualized in terms of a risk that certain consequences
will result from conduct, and that risk. Because liability for 'intentional torts' can
sometimes be attracted by recklessness, it is important to map the boundaries of
tortious recklessness, and in particular to map the boundary between recklessness and
negligence.
Negligence in tort law is failure to comply with a legally specified standard of
conduct, pure and simple. It has no mental element. On one hand, the plaintiff in a tort
action for negligence does not have to prove inattention or inadvertence on the part of
the defendant.The aim of this project is to bring out whether mental element, wholly,
is relevant in tort law and its extent in determining liability. This will be done so by
discussing the terms Motive, Intention etc and the exceptions to these rules.

4
1.2. RESEARCH PROBLEM:
 What is the extent to which mental element helps in determining tortious
liability?

1.3. OBJECTIVES:

 To study the concept of mental element in Tort Law

 To identify the role of Motive and Intention in determining tortious
liability
 To evaluate the exceptions of the said rules

1.4. LITERATURE REVIEW:

The Journal Articles, ‘Mens Rea in Tort Law’ by Peter Cane and ‘Motive as an
element of Tort’ have significantly helped shape the better parts of Chapters 1 and 2.
The article ‘Mental Elements- Essentially in Torts’ has served a major role if
determining the hypothesis of this project. It also helped realise the first objective of
this paper.
The articles ‘Role of Motive, Intention and Malice in Torts’ by Diya Rai,
‘Understanding the Intent in Tort Law’, ‘Damnum sine injuria’, and ‘Is there a
difference between negligence and recklessness’ by Hach & Rose were very essential
in mapping out the entirety of Chapters 2, 3 and 4.
The books ‘Law of Tort’ by Winfield helped form the initial framework for this
project. The amount of detail and the explanation of law was extremely useful.
Though centred firmly on English Law, this new edition continues to follow
significant development in major Commonwealth countries.
Further, the book, ‘Intent in Tort Law’ by Keith N Hylton has greatly increased the
much needed insight to make Chapter 3. This book explains intent standards in tort
law on the basis of the incentive effects of tort liability rules.

1.5. METHODOLOGY:

This paper will rely on secondary data in the form of Journal Articles to explain the
main objective, and the secondary data in turn, will be critically analysed. So, it will
be qualitative in nature. The objectives of the project will be verified when the project
is concluded, as a form of a top-down method.

5
 1.6. SOURCES OF STUDY:

Secondary sources in the form of written documents such as Books, Magazines,

Texts, Reports, Journal Articles etc served as sources of study for this project.

1.7. TABLE OF CASES:

NAME OF THE CASE CITATION

Bradford Corporation v. Pickles [1895] AC 587

Allen v. Flood [1898] AC 1

Vishnu Basudeo v. T.L.H. Smith Pearse AIR 1949 NAG 364

Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal AIR 1975 AII 132

Palmer v. Loder [1962] CLY 2333

46 Wash. 2d 197,
Garratt v. Dailey 279 P.2d 1091 (1955)

Wilkinson v. Downton [1897]2 OB 57

Balak Glass Emporium v. United India Insurance Co. Lmt. AIR 1993 Ker 342

6
 CHAPTER- II

MOTIVE:

Motive is the state of mind of a person which inspired him to do an act. Generally, it means
the purpose behind the commission of an act.

“It is the act and not the motive for the act that must be regarded. If the act, apart from the
motive, given rise merely to damage with legal injury1, the motive, however reprehensible it
may be, will not supply that element.” - Salmond

It is unive8rsally acknowledged that “where one exercises a legal right only, the motive
which actuates him is immaterial”. Motive leads to intension formation, which is the ultimate
cause. Motive is the ultimate object with which an act is done, while the immediate purpose
is the intention. The decisions of Lord Halsbury and Lord Watson in Bradford Corporation
vs Pickles2 and Aleen vs Flood 3, are considered to be one of the earliest cases which moulded
the place of motive in tort law.

In the case of Bradford4, the plaintiffs, owned land below which were water springs that were
used to supply water to Bradford town for more than 40 years. The defendant owned land
over the plaintiffs on a higher level. There was a natural reservoir under the defendant’s land
and water flowed from that reservoir down to the springs of the plaintiffs. The defendant,
however, sank a shaft into his land to alter the flow of water. This reduced the amount of
water flowing into the springs of the plaintiff significantly. There was sufficient proof to
suggest that the defendant was following this course of action, not to give himself any
immediate advantage, but merely to deprive the plaintiffs of water. The plaintiffs insisted that
this was malicious and that they had the right to an injunction to stop the defendant from their
course of action. It was held that, the issue in question was not if the state of mind of the
person who committed the act can affect the right to do it. If it was a lawful act, however ill
the motive might be, he had a right to commit the act. Also, no use of property, which would
be legal if due to a proper motive, can become illegal because it is prompted by a motive that
is improper or even malicious.

1
Damnum sine injuria
2
[1895] AC 587
3
[1898] AC 1
4
Bradford vs Pickles

7
Further observed, in the case of Allen vs Flood5, which is a leading case in Tort law on
intentionally inflicted economic loss, a trade union official told an employer that his members
would not work alongside the claimants. The employer was pressured to get rid of the
claimants. For the loss of work, the claimants sued the trade union official. An important fact
is that all the workers in the case were only hired day by day, so they were liable at any time
to be discharged. Therefore, the trade union official had never threatened a breach of contract
because the contracts began afresh with a new day’s work.

It was held that even though there was ‘malicious motive’, this could not turn a contract
unlawful because the effect actually complained of (no reemployment) was in itself entirely
lawful. Also, in the course of the judgement, it was pointed out by Lord Davey that ‘an
employer may refuse to employ (an individual) for the most mistaken, capricious, malicious
or morally reprehensible motives that can be conceived, but the workman has no right of
action against him.’ One must keep in mind that in considering a person’s liability to civil
proceedings the proposition in question only applies to ‘acts otherwise lawful’, i.e., to acts
involving no breach of duty, or, in other words, no wrong to anyone. The act committed by
Allen did not infringe the rights of the plaintiffs, even though Allen acted maliciously and
with a conscious will to injure them. To conclude, to inform a person that others will annoy
or injure him unless he acts in a particular way cannot of itself be actionable, whatever the
motive or intention of the informant may have been.

Therefore, the decision of Lord Watson in Allen vs Flood, settled that ‘Motive is irrelevant in
the Law of Torts.’

It, therefore, means, as a general rule that an act which is lawful cannot become unlawful
merely because it is done with any motive. That is to say, if conduct is unlawful, good motive
will not exonerate the defendant,6 and that if conduct is lawful, a ‘bad motive will not make
him liable.’

Indian courts too have spoken about the irrelevance of motive as well as malice in many
cases, the leading case being Vishnu Basudeo vs T.L.H. Smith Pearse7, where it was observed
by Mudholkar. J that, in a leading case such as the case od Allen vs Flood, that lays down that
as a general rule, a bad motive is an essential condition of liability for a civil wrong except in

5
[1898] AC 1
6
To this, however, defences like necessity and private defence are exceptions, for they defend to a certain extent
on a good motive on the part of the defendant.
7
AIR 1949 NAG 364

8
cases like malicious prosecution, defamation and conspiracy. What has ordinarily to be seen
is the lawful act. If it is so, then motive with which it was done is of little significance. In this
case, however, it has been held that the act must presume to have been intended by the
respondent to ‘cause mental and bodily distress’ to an appellant. Therefore, we can say that a
good motive is no justification for acts otherwise illegal and a bad motive does not make
wrongful act otherwise legal.

2.1. EXCEPTIONS:

There are certain sections in torts where motive may be an essential element, and
therefore relevant in determining liability:

1. In the cases of deceit, malicious prosecution, injurious falsehood and

defamation, where defence of privilege or fair comment is available. The
defence of qualified privilege is only available, if the publication was made in
good faith.
2. In cases of conspiracy, interference with trade or contractual relations.
3. In cases of nuisance, causing of personal discomfort by an unlawful motive
may turn an otherwise lawful act into nuisance.

Motive becomes relevant in the tort of defamation when qualified privilege or fair comment
is pleaded. The defence of qualified privilege is available if the statement was made in good
faith. The presence of malice or evil motive negates good faith. In such a case of personal
discomfort an unlawful motive may turn an otherwise lawful act into nuisance as observed in
the case of Palmer vs Loder8.

CHAPTER- III

8
1962 CLY 2333

9
INTENTION:

Intention signifies full advertence in the mind of the defendant to his conduct, which is in
question, and to its consequences, together with a desire for those consequences. But it is
essential to add that the interpretation of this definition by the law is often technical in nature.
To begin with, it is impossible for the law to do more than to infer a man’s intention, or
indeed any other mental state of his, from his conduct. A party must be considered, in point
of law, to intend that which is the necessary or natural consequence of that which he does. 9

A tortious liability may arise if a person causes any injury related to the life, property,
reputation, etc. of the victim. According to tort law, the liability may be incurred irrespective
of whether the injury was intentionally or accidentally inflicted.

Depending on the intention, a tort can be divided into two broad categories. Namely:

1. Intentional Tort
2. Unintentional Tort

Some action must be taken with a purpose to commit an intentional tort, i.e. an intention is
must to commit an act. It is essential that there is a mental element.

In Garratt v. Dailey10, in 1955, a young boy whose named Brian, pulled a chair from
underneath Ruth Garratt as she went to sit down. Unaware of what Brian did, Ruth fell and
broke her hip because Brain pulled the chair. Ruth filed a lawsuit against the family of Brian
who she claimed was acting intentionally, hence causing her personal injury. Although Brian
did not intend to cause injury, the court delivered a judgement that held that since the act
resulted in the hip being broken, Ruth was awarded $11,000 in damages. Brian’s family
appealed on the grounds that children of 5 years of age could not be held liable for an
intentional tort.

The court ruled that children can be held liable and that ‘the intent element is in place if the
person knew with certainty that the act carries a risk of injury’.

Intentional tort includes:

9
Winfield P.h, Law of Tort (4th, , London 1948) 42-44
10
46 Wash. 2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091

10
Battery: When physically applying some force to another person’s body in an offensive
manner that causes some harm is called battery.

Assault: When one person’s act creates an apprehension in another person’s mind that such
act is likely or intended to cause such harm.

The difference between battery and assault is, in battery, physical contact is mandatory while
in assault, physical contact is not mandatory as the purpose is to threaten not to harm.

False Imprisonment: It is the person’s unlawful confinement without his will. It is not
necessary to place a person behind bars, a mere impossibility of escape from a certain area
against the person’s will is sufficient to constitute false imprisonment wrong.

It includes the use of physical force (actual expression of force is not always required), a
physical barrier such as a locked room, invalid use of legal authority. False arrest is the part
of false imprisonment that includes police detention of the person without legal authority.
Malicious prosecution falls under the category of false imprisonment.

Trespass: It is the intentional, unreasonable invasion of property, land, person or goods. The
unreasonable interference can harass or harm the other person, however slight it may be. The
owner of the property’s legal right is infringed because the misappropriation or exploitation
of his right deprives him of his right to enjoy the benefit of the property.

Unintentional Tort includes:

The defendant causes injury to the plaintiff in the case of unintentional torture, but without
any mala fide11 intention. It could be called an unexpected accident. This was inadvertently
done by the person who caused the injury because he/she was not being careful. Such an
individual may be described as negligent or reckless. In the case of unintentional tort, it may
be noted that the injury is caused by the omission of the “duty of care” that a reasonable and
prudent man should have considered.

In the case of Wilkinson v. Downton12, the defendant joked that her husband had encountered
an accident and had been admitted to a hospital. She was shocked by this news and fell
seriously ill. She subsequently sued the defendant for damages under tort. The defendant
claimed he never wanted to harm the plaintiff, but only cut a joke. The court dismissed his
claim, holding him liable. Here, the court observed that mere intention was not an essential

11
In bad faith
12
(1897) 2 QB 57

11
factor in tort. The defendant was aware of the natural and probable consequences of his act
which caused the plaintiff to suffer damage. He was therefore liable, whether he intended to
do so or not.

Under both criminal and tort prosecution, a defendant who may prove to the court’s
satisfaction that he or she was unaware of the nature or consequences of his or her
actions at the time of the offense may be exempt from charges, thus failing to account
for intent.

3.1. INTENTION & MOTIVE:

While intention determines whether the accused committed the crime purposely or
accidentally, motive answers the question, why the accused committed the crime.
Simply put, motive impels intention, so, the latter arises out of the former. In every
criminal case, the intention of the defendant is foremost, because, the guilt or
innocence can only be proved with it. On the other hand, motive does not play a
significant role in determining the guilt or innocence. The motive has been described
as “the ulterior intent.” These two words are often used in popular and even legal
usage interchangeably. The ultimate object with which an act is done is the motive,
whereas the intention is the immediate purpose.

For example, A, steals a bunch of bananas from B’s general shop. A is liable for theft
as well as for illegal trespass, though A’s motive was to feed his starving wife, not to
cause loss to B.

3.2. MALICE:

‘Malice’ in legal sense means an intention to cause injury to another party. The tort of
malicious prosecution implies initiation of unsuccessful legal proceedings against a
party, without reasonable and probable cause. An act or statement becomes malicious
if it is used for a purpose other than that which is sanctioned by the authority of law.
There is emphasize put on the fact that a wrongful act does not become lawful merely
because the motive is good. Similarly, a lawful act doesn’t become wrongful because
of an improper, bad or evil motive or malice.13

13
Bradford Corporation vs Pickles, [1895] AC 587

12
 In the case of Town Area Committee vs Prabhu Dayal14, plaintiff had made
construction of 16 shops on the old foundations of the building and the defendants ,
Town Area Committee illegally demolished these very constructions. But, according
to him, under Section 186 of the U.P Municipal Act 15 was bad as it gave the plaintiff a
span of only two hours to demolish the constructions and that was considered as not a
reasonable amount of time as contemplated in Section 302 of the Act. It was also
asserted that demolition, after this notice was bad as the notice was served at a time
when the plaintiff was out of station. This action was said to be mala fide16.

Here, it was held that the plaintiff can get compensation only if he proves to have
suffered injury because of an illegal act of the defendant and not otherwise. Malice
isn’t related in no sense. A legal act, though, motivated by malice, will not make the
actor liable to pay damages. Mere malice cannot disentitle a person from taking
recourse to law for getting the wrong undone.

3.3. EXCEPTIONS TO MALICE:

In the following cases, malice becomes relevant in determining tortious liability:

1. When the act is otherwise unlawful and wrongful intention can be gathered
from the circumstances of the case17.
2. Malice on the part of the defendant to be proved in torts of deceit and
malicious prosecution.
3. The presence of malice in cases of defamation and mala fide the defendant
cannot avoid liability by the defence cannot avoid liability by the defence of
qualified privilege in such a case.
4. Causing personal discomfort by public nuisance.
5. Malice which results in aggravation of damages.

Lack of a reasonable or probable cause or ‘intentional wrongdoing without a just

cause or excuse’ is known as ‘malice in law’. ‘Improper or evil motive’ is popularly
termed as ‘malice in fact’. It is, as discussed, not necessary to investigate whether
the action is motivated by malice or not.

CHAPTER- IV
14
AIR 1975 AII 132
15
Power of Municipality to stop erection 2nd to demolish building erected
16
In bad faith
17
Balak Glass Emporium vs United India Insurance co. Ltd, AIR 1993 Ker 342

13
NEGLIGENCE & RECKLESSNESS:

Negligence is the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage, undesired by
the defendant to the plaintiff – Winfield & Jolowicz

Negligence signifies total or partial inadvertence on the part of the defendant towards his
conduct and its consequence. In many cases, there may be advertence, but it is necessary
there must be lack of desire to produce the consequences complained of. It is on the basis that
negligence may be distinguished from intention.

The law of negligence requires individuals to conduct themselves in a way that conforms
to certain standards of conduct. If a person doesn't conform to that standard, the person can
be held liable for the harm he or she causes to another person or property. Sometimes the
standard of conduct requires a person to act, so it's possible for the omission of an act to give
rise to a negligence claim.

In order to prove that a defendant was negligent, a plaintiff must prove the elements of
negligence. The elements of negligence are duty, breach, causation, and damages. Although
this seems fairly straightforward, proving these elements involves a lot of legal knowledge
and analysis.18

It should be noted here that the expression 'negligent' may not always apply specifically to
the tort of negligence; it has a different meaning in other contexts, of failure by a person to
comply with a strict duty laid upon him by law whereby the person in question had his mind
wholly or partly diverted from what he was doing. This applies to certain torts where a person
has done something potentially harmful and is required to take responsibility for his actions
even though he may have acted unintentionally, and the consequences of his conduct were
unforeseeable.

Recklessness differs from negligence - which consists mainly of carelessness or

incompetence - in that recklessness requires the conscious choice to take a particular
course of action. Also, recklessness requires a further degree of risk on the part of the actor
than negligence does. Under recklessness, the actor intends to commit the act but does not
actually intend to cause harm to others. Instead, he may wish that the harm does not happen,
but he has a strong reason to believe that it might. 19 The legal difference between an act of
negligence and an act of recklessness is one of intention. If someone knowingly endangers
18
https://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/negligence.html
19
https://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/recklessness.html

14
another person’s health and safety, often also breaking a law in the process, they may be sued
for recklessly causing an injury.

In cases involving reckless conduct, the injured party involved may be able to collect punitive
fines in addition to other forms of compensation if their claim is successful. Negligence, on
the other hand, is failing to safely conduct oneself or provide a safe environment for others,
but not necessarily intentionally.

CHAPTER- V

CONCLUSION:

15
The question this paper has been after is ‘how far are “mental elements” essential n Tort
Law?.’ and ‘Whether or not “mental elements” play a significant role in the determination of
tortious liability?’ If it was a lawful act, however ill the motive might be, a person has the
right to commit the act. In case of no use of property, which would be legal if due to a proper
motive, can become illegal because it is prompted by a motive that is improper or even
malicious. Even though there was ‘malicious motive’, this could not turn a contract unlawful
because the effect actually complained of (no reemployment) was in itself entirely lawful.
An act which is lawful cannot become unlawful merely because it is done with any motive. A
bad motive is an essential condition of liability for a civil wrong except in cases like
malicious prosecution, defamation and conspiracy. A good motive is no justification for acts
otherwise illegal and a bad motive does not make wrongful act otherwise legal.
Motive becomes relevant in the tort of defamation when qualified privilege or fair comment
is pleaded. The decision of Lord Watson in Allen vs Flood, settled that ‘Motive is irrelevant
in the Law of Torts.’
Intention by itself is not a good defence in tort as it is clearly impossible to know what is
going on in the mind of the defendant. While intention determines whether the accused
committed the crime purposely or accidentally, motive answers the question, why the accused
committed the crime. Simply put, motive impels intention, so, the latter arises out of the
former. In every criminal case, the intention of the defendant is foremost, because, the guilt
or innocence can only be proved with it. On the other hand, motive does not play a significant
role in determining the guilt or innocence.
To summarize the findings, intention or the mental element is ‘irrelevant’ in the law of tort.
The term ‘irrelevant’ denotes that presence or absence of mental element shall not negative
the liability of the wrong doer.

Sr. No CONTENT MENTAL ELEMENT

1. Law of Tort Irrelevant

2. Motive Irrelevant, with exceptions

3. Intentional Tort Relevant

4. Unintentional Tort Irrelevant

5. Negligence or Recklessness Irrelevant

6. Malice Irrelevant, with exceptions

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

WEBSITES:

16
 1. Resham Jain, ' Mental Elements- Essentially in Torts' (www.lawyersclubindia.com
2012) < https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Mental-Elements-Essentially-in-
Tort-5116.asp> accessed 30-01-2020
2. Diva Rai, ' Role of Motive, Intention and Malice in Torts' ( blog.ipleaders.in
September 18, 2019) < https://blog.ipleaders.in/role-of-motive-intention-and-malice-
in-torts/> accessed 19-02-2020
3. 'Understanding the Intent in Tort Law' (tort.laws.com December 22, 2019) <
https://tort.laws.com/intentional-interference/with-a-person/meaning-of-intent>
accessed 19-02-2020
4. ' damnum sine injuria' (mylegalpartner.wordpress.com January 3, 2018) <
https://mylegalpartner.wordpress.com/tag/damnum-sine-injuria/> accessed 21-02-
2020
5. Hach & Rose, ' Is there a difference between negligence and recklessness?'
( www.unionlawfirm.com March 21, 2017) < https://www.unionlawfirm.com/faqs/is-
there-a-difference-between-negligence-and-recklessness/> accessed 17-02-2020

JOURNAL ARTICLES:

1. Peter Cane, ' Mens Rea in Tort Law' [ 2000] Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Vol. 20,
No. 4 (Winter, 2000), pp. 533-556
2. ' Motive as an Element of Tort ' [ 1909] The Yale Law Journal Vol. 18, No. 8 (June
1909), pp. 636-640

BOOKS:

1. Winfield P.h, Law of Tort (4th, , London 1948) 42-44

2. S. P Singh, Law of Tort (7th, Universal Law Publishing Co., 1986)
3. Salmond and Heuston, The Law of Tort (21st, Sweet & Maxwell, 24 October 1996)
4. Keith N. Hylton, Intent in Tort Law, ( April 22, 2009), Boston University of Law
Working Paper, 09-21
5. Steve W. Schneider, Negligence Torts

17