Various definitions of the Law of Tort have so far followed a negative approach. They explain the nature of "Tort" by either distinguishing it from other wrongs or by mentioning some of the elements which are found in tort but are not there in other wrongs. For instance when some wrongful act has been done it has got to be seen first whether it is civil or a criminal wrong. If the wrong is found to be a civil one we have to see whether it exclusively belongs to any other recognized category of civil wrong like breach of contract and breach of trust or tort. We will see later see how Law of Tort is distinguished from other forms of liability like Criminal Law, Contract and Breach of Trust. Winfield’s Definition of Tort
31 John G. Fleming has correctly stated that no truly satisfactory definition of a tort has yet been discovered (1977, p. 1-13). Winfield (Law of Tort, 11th edition) has defined Tortious Liability as arising from: (a) Breach of a duty primarily fixed by the law; (b) This duty is towards persons generally; and (c) Its breach is redressible by an action for unliquidated damages. The definition of Tort provided for by Professor Winfield illustrates how difficult it is to formulate an all-purpose definition of Tort that will cover all the topics constituting the Law of Torts. Winfield’s definition is not geared at describing what is or what is not sufficient to establish Tortious Liability. The definition merely helps us to distinguish Law of Tort from other branches of the Law or other forms of liability like Law of Contract and Criminal Law. We shall later on
