Capacity of Parties in Law of Torts: Minors, Corporations, and Special Protections

 

Capacity of Parties in Law of Torts refers to the legal ability of parties to sue or be sued. Generally, every person has the capacity to be involved in tortious litigation, but there are certain exceptions and special rules for different classes of individuals and entities. This article provides an overview of the capacity of various parties under tort law, based on classifications such as minors, corporations, and individuals exercising parental or quasi-parental authority.

1. Minors

A minor has the right to sue in tort, just like an adult, but with a key procedural distinction: a minor must bring the action through a next friend (a legal representative who acts on behalf of the minor). Although the law of torts does not excuse minors from liability for their wrongful acts, certain mental elements such as intent may require a higher threshold of proof when it comes to torts involving deceit or malicious prosecution.

For example, in Walmsley v. Humenick, the Supreme Court of British Columbia held that a child of five years could not be held liable for negligence, as the child had not yet reached the stage of mental development required to understand the consequences of their actions.

However, a minor’s ability to contract is limited. A minor’s agreement is generally void ab initio under contract law. If a minor’s act involves both tort and breach of contract, courts must determine if the action primarily enforces a contract, in which case it would not be allowed. However, if the tort is independent of the contract, the minor may still be held liable. For instance, in Burnard v. Haggis, a minor was held liable for tortious negligence after violating express instructions regarding the use of a hired horse.

2. Corporations

Corporations are legally recognized entities that can sue and be sued in tort. Initially, there were doubts about whether a corporation could be held liable for torts that required malicious intent, such as malicious prosecution or deceit. However, it is now settled that corporations are liable for the wrongful acts of their agents and employees, as long as those acts occur within the scope of their employment.

A significant case illustrating this point is Campbell v. Paddington Corporation, where a corporation was held liable for a public nuisance created by the construction of a viewing stand that obstructed the view from the plaintiff’s property. Corporations are also liable for ultra vires (beyond the powers) and intra vires (within the powers) torts.

3. Act of State

An Act of State refers to an action taken by a sovereign power or its agents against individuals or entities of another state, which cannot be challenged in municipal courts. This doctrine provides immunity from liability for acts carried out in the exercise of sovereign functions.

For instance, in Buron v. Denman, the British Navy, under the direction of Captain Denman, freed slaves and destroyed slave barracoons (camps) owned by the plaintiff on the west coast of Africa. Although Captain Denman acted without direct authority, his actions were later ratified by the British government, leading the court to rule that the plaintiff could not sue for compensation due to the Act of State immunity.

4. Husband and Wife

Under common law, a husband used to be liable for the torts committed by his wife after marriage. However, modern statutes such as the Married Women’s Property Act, 1882 and subsequent reforms, such as the Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act, 1935, have eliminated this rule. Now, a wife is liable for her torts, just as an individual is, and her husband is no longer automatically liable merely because of their marital relationship.

However, if the husband and wife are joint tortfeasors, they can be sued jointly for any wrongful acts.

5. Persons with Parental or Quasi-Parental Authority

Parents and individuals acting in loco parentis (in place of a parent) have a limited right to administer punishment to children to prevent them from harming themselves or others. While this right allows for reasonable and moderate punishment, excessive force may lead to liability for torts such as assault or battery.

Parents are generally not liable for their children’s torts unless the child was acting as an agent or servant of the parent, or the parent’s own negligence allowed the tort to occur. For example, in Bebee v. Sales, a father was held liable after he allowed his son to keep an airgun, despite knowing the son had previously caused mischief with it.

6. Independent and Joint Tortfeasors (Composite Tortfeasors)

In tort law, tortfeasors refer to individuals or entities who commit a tort. They can be classified into independent tortfeasors and joint tortfeasors.

• Independent Tortfeasors: These are individuals who commit separate wrongful acts that result in distinct injuries to the plaintiff. Each tortfeasor is independently liable for the harm they cause. The plaintiff may choose to sue any one of them separately, and the liability is limited to the damage caused by that specific defendant.
• Joint Tortfeasors: Joint tortfeasors, also known as composite tortfeasors, are those who act together in committing a wrongful act, or whose acts combine to cause a single injury to the plaintiff. In such cases, each tortfeasor is jointly and severally liable for the entire harm. This means the plaintiff can recover the full amount of damages from any one of the defendants, and the defendant who pays can then seek contribution from the other liable parties.

Example: In The Koursk Case, two ships collided due to the negligence of both captains, leading to the sinking of another ship. The court ruled that both captains were joint tortfeasors, and the plaintiff could recover the total damages from either one of them.

7. Persons Having Judicial and Executive Authority

Individuals vested with judicial or executive authority enjoy certain privileges and immunities under tort law to ensure they can perform their duties without fear of personal liability.

• Judicial Authority: Judges, magistrates, and other judicial officers are generally immune from personal liability for acts done in their judicial capacity. This immunity ensures that judges can administer justice without the threat of legal repercussions for their decisions, even if their judgment is found to be incorrect. This immunity applies unless the judge acted without jurisdiction or in bad faith.

Example: In Anderson v. Gorrie, judges of the Supreme Court of Trinidad were sued for allegedly acting with malice in their judgments. The court held that judges are immune from personal liability for judicial acts performed within their jurisdiction, regardless of their motives.

• Executive Authority: Government officials, such as police officers, ministers, and bureaucrats, also enjoy limited immunity while performing executive functions. This immunity is granted for actions taken in good faith, within the scope of their authority, and in the course of their official duties. However, if an official acts outside the scope of their authority or in bad faith, they can be held personally liable for torts like false imprisonment or trespass.

Example: In Harnett v. Bond, a police officer was held liable for false imprisonment because his actions went beyond the scope of his authority. The officer could not claim executive immunity for his wrongful act.

Conclusion

Understanding the capacity of parties under tort law is crucial for legal practitioners and students. Minors, corporations, and those exercising parental authority are all subject to specific rules regarding their liability and ability to sue. Each of these categories has unique nuances, but the guiding principle remains that individuals and entities are generally responsible for their wrongful acts, provided that they have the legal capacity to be sued.