The aim of this article to give the research Regarding the Pigeon hole Theory. So here if we put three Pigeons in two Pigeonholes ,at slightest two of the Pigeons put a stop to up in the constant puncture then we can find that so far underlying attitude of life as it captures the self-same essence of counting .this paper also discussing how this Theory evaluate in law with different examples. To analysis this Theory I have read many cases and journals, this Theory is from various e-resources, case law and it is explorative in nature.

Is it law of Tort or law of Torts? This question faced by every law student in their 1st or 2nd semester of law school, regarding this Theory Salomon give his view, What Should be called law of Torts or we should called law of tort, to figure out this problem Salmond introduced this Theory Pigeon hole Theory and said it's not law of tort , it is law of Torts, according to this statement a person is liable for a tort committed by him but there are some specific exceptions.

When a person is made liable for tort a tort which was committed by another, and the liability is fixed. Strict liability and absolute liability are well recognized for these kind of wrongful act. An act said to be tort when any harm causing injurious act. A person can only escape from being guilty if that person can prove a legal justification for not committing an offence, or an excuse to it. This article covers the main concept of Tortuous liability and the variant theories of Winfield and Salmond (Pigeon hole Theory) on addressing tortuous liability.

Aspects of criticism:
Should be called law of Torts or law of tort, to describe this question Salmond introduced the Pigeon hole Theory and said it is law of Torts, basically This article covers the general concept of Tortuous liability and the variant theories of Winfield and Salmond (Pigeon hole Theory) on establishing tortuous liability.

Tort is a Civil Wrong committed by a person to another. But all civil wrongs are not Torts. Then the question raise that how we can filter Tort from the whole mix of all civil wrongs. There is solution for this question we can understand from the definitions given by Winfield, Salmond, fraser.

Their definitions of Tort can be summarized as follows:

This introduced by Salmond which can justify tort as any harm constituted as legal injury, must fit into Pigeon holes i.e specific tort because there is no space for another tort. -tort is a civil wrong in cases of tort there remedy is a common law action for all unliquidated damages and which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of a contract or the breach of a trust, or other merely equitable obligation. Tort = Civil wrongs  (Breach of trust + Breach of contract + other merely equitable obligations)

Winfield utility Theory talks about liability of Torts arises from 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 damges. It provides deterrents, kind of a relief for diverse forms of harms like mental illness, financial injuries and impairment of reputation or goodwill. This highlights the regulation of liability relating to the scope of tort, such as trespass to property, wrongful birth and unjust life.

Tort = Breach of duty Remedy =Unliquidated damages
Fraser believed that an infringement of a right in rem of a private individual giving a right of compensation at the suit of the Injured party. Tort = Infringement of a private right of individuals Remedy = Compensation

A person who violates duty and infringe the private rights of another is liable for committing the wrongful act. Such kind of liability called tortuous liability. The liability which is not arise from any contract or other obligations and act of parties but merely due to the breach of duty or trust is known as Tortuous liability. This Theory is completely different from criminal liability.

It law of Tort or law of Torts?

This question can be answered by the theories of Winfield and Salmond (Pigeon Hole Theory).

Salmond's Pigeon hole Theory
Salmond believed that it is law of Torts not law of tort (it's specific well-defined wrongs and there is only a law of Torts and no law of tort) According to him there is no single principle to check the tortuous liability. If any affected person can put the tort under any specified tort, that means if a person is entitle to file a suit against only that harm which comes within one of the categories of this law specific verse like forgery, murder etc has specific Torts and all other wrongs fall outside of this preview. he could be eligible for damages.

Otherwise there is no wrong and remedy. So the burden of proof is vested on the injured party to establish that the tort is under any particular head or hole of specified Torts. This Theory is popularly known as Pigeon hole Theory. Torts like defamation , nuisance, negligence, trespass etc are examples of already existing Pigeon holes. If the injury cannot be placed under any heads ,it should not be considered as a tort and therefore quashed the right of action.

Winfield's Theory

If we look at the definition which is given by Winfield failed to distinguish between crime, tort, breach of contract. he believed that it is law of Tort. According to him where the legal injury is strictly against the recognized law of the land or the general principle of liability arises when a person inflict injury to another and or If a person violates the duty and resulted in the legal injury of other person. which says, all unjustified harms are tortuous.

Then we can called tort and the aggrieved party has a right of action for un liquidated damages. Winfield leaves space for the creation of new Torts. His Theory has a wide approach towards tortuous liability. New Torts originated with changing times can be properly handled by Winfield's Theory. Thereby the extent of Torts covered and range of remedy is also wide.

Reception law of Torts in India:

Winfield proposed that every mental and psychical injure will considered as a tort unless justified, whereas Salmond that no mental and psychical injury can be said to be tort until or unless they satisfy the condition of Pigeon hole. That's why the book explaining this concept of tort written by Winfield is called law of tort whereas book by Salmond is called law of Torts.

This concept has emerged in England and the purpose of this law is to provide a remedy to the person Whose Rights has been violated. It is also the second hand of criminal justice by awarding exemplary damages. This concept has been a famous and secured place in the United States and the United Kingdom and many different countries. But still it is a growing branch if the tree and still developing in India. This tort is active in litigation, judiciary and people.

Criticism:
Pigeon Hole Theory has already been criticized, there are still many intelligent people and they are still questioning the future development in the study of law.

Conclusion
We can see that law of tort is not written anywhere, tort law come under common law. As we can say tort is not codified. Sometime court needs to think with time and emerging new concerns. That's why both Theory have equal role addressing Torts as it is a still growing area of law, which is given by Salmond and Winfield. In conclusion, though the Pigeonhole Theory seems to be simple, this principal furthermore can also be functional in our everyday life whether we realize it or not.

Written By: Gauri Kaushik - Pursuing BA.LLB.