Winfield Theory of Law of Torts
Winfield theory of law of torts and Winfield definition of torts are based on the debate of whether the subject of torts should be called as ‘Law of Torts’ or ‘Law of Tort’. Therefore, is it a law of tort or law of torts discussed in Salmond's Pigeon Hole Theory of Torts?
Table of Contents
 |
| Winfield Theory of Law of Torts |
The Winfield theory of the law of torts is stated that it is the law of tort, and Salmond’s pigeon hole theory states that it is the Law of Torts.
Winfield propagated his theory and referred to tort as tortious liability arising from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by the law and this duty is towards persons generally. Its breach is redressable by an action for un-liquidated damages.
In other words, Winfield considered tort as a breach of duty and the remedy to which would be given in the form of unliquidated damages awarded for breach of contract that arises from causes that are not reasonably foreseeable.
Winfield's Definition of Torts
Winfield's Definition of Torts states the law of tort is an injury to another person, if it is not justified by the law of the land.
Winfield defined torts as "Tortious liability arises from the breach of duty primarily fixed by the law. Generally, this duty is towards the other persons and its breach is redressable by action or unliquidated damages."
Winfield Opposed Salmond’s Pigeon Hole Theory of Torts
Salmond's pigeon hole theory of torts is in support of the 'Law of Torts' and Winfield theory of torts is in support of the 'Law of Tort'. Winfield and other jurists criticised Salmond's Pigeon Hole Theory and supported Winfield's theory of torts.
It is not appropriate to choose between two theories without any proper interpretation. And, the judiciary considered these theories are two sides of a single coin.
Supporter of Winfield's Theory of Torts
The supporters of Winfield's theory of torts support this theory by stating the principle of 'ubi jus ibi remedium' which means whenever a loss is caused to the plaintiff, there is a remedy available to the plaintiff to get compensation for the damages caused by the wrongdoer.
In other words, the cause of action in the law of torts arises whenever a person knowingly or deliberately hurts another person without any cause.
Criticism of Winfield's Theory of Torts
Winfield theory of torts did not receive any major criticism from jurists and there is only one drawback which is debated in much detail. There is no uniformity or predecided torts established in the law of tort rather ever-evolving jurisprudence allows it to include new wrongs according to various case laws.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Winfield utility theory?
Winfield's utility Theory talks about the liability of Torts arising from a breach of duty primarily which is fixed by law. This duty is towards persons generally and its breach is Redressable by an action for unliquidated damages.
What is Winfield's theory of torts?
Winfield has given two competing theories: (1) All injuries done to another person are torts unless there is some justification recognised by law. (2) There are a definite number of torts outside which liability in tort does not arise.
What is Winfield's classification of tort?
Winfield definition – “Tortious liability arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by law, this duty is towards persons generally and its breach is redressable by an action for unliquidated damages.”
What is the difference between Winfield and Salmond?
Winfield's theory opens a room for newer injuries and their remedies whereas, Salmond's theory restricts newer torts and demands wrongful acts to fit in the pigeon-holes i.e., the specified torts that already exist. This theory says that the plaintiff can claim damages only for those actions that are already labelled.
Conclusion
Winfield theory of law of torts is based on the debate whether the subject of torts should be called as ‘Law of Torts’ or ‘Law of Tort’. Winfield opposed Salmond's Pigeon Hole Theory of Torts which is accepted by many jurists.