The pigeon-hole theory in the law of torts is a concept introduced
by Salmond, a legal scholar. It suggests that for an act to be
classified as a tort, it must fit into one of the recognized
categories or “pigeon-holes” of torts. In essence, there is no
general principle that every wrongful act can give rise to liability
unless it aligns with a well-defined tort.
Key Features
1. Recognized Torts Only: The theory holds that a plaintiff can
only succeed in a tort claim if the defendant’s conduct falls
within a specific established tort, such as negligence,
defamation, trespass, or nuisance.
2. Limitations: It limits the scope of liability because new
wrongful acts that do not fit into an existing “pigeon-hole”
may not be actionable under this theory.
3. Criticism: Critics, such as Winfield, argue that this theory is
too rigid. Winfield’s opposing view states that any wrongful act
causing harm to another should be considered a tort unless
there is a valid justification or defense.
Example:
If a person suffers harm due to a new form of wrongdoing that
does not clearly fit into a recognized tort, Salmond’s theory might
exclude liability, while Winfield’s theory could potentially allow it
under a more general principle of wrongful conduct.
The pigeon-hole theory highlights the structured nature of tort
law but is often criticized for its inability to adapt to evolving
societal needs and emerging wrongs.
