or does Law of Tort: consist of a number of specific rules prohibiting certain kind of harmful activity, leaving all the residue outside the sphere of legal responsibility ? In other words, the problem is: (i) Is it the LAW OF TORT, i.e. every wrongful act, for which there is no justification or excuse to be treated as a tort; or (ii) Is it the Law of Torts, consisting of a number of specific wrongs beyond which the liability under this branch of law cannot arise? Sir John Salmond formulated this problem in a form of the question in 1910. Does the Law of Torts consist of: (a) A fundamental general principle that it is wrongful to cause harm to other persons in the absence of some specific ground of justification or excuse; or does the Law of Tort consist of,
53 (b) a number of specific rules prohibiting certain kinds of harmful activity and leaving all residue outside the sphere of legal responsibility? Sir Frederick Pollock 4 Professor Dicey 5 , Professor Winfield 6 were ardent supporters of the view that the Law of Tort consists of a fundamental general principle that it is wrongful to cause harm to other persons in the absence of some specific ground of justification or excuse. Sir John Salmond 7 , Sir John Miles
