The Supreme Court had this to say on the nature of the law of torts in the case of Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors. decided on May 5, 2008.

It is recognized that the Law of Torts is not stagnant but is growing. As stated by the American Restatement of Torts, Art 1; vide D. L. Lloyd: Jurisprudence:

“The entire history of the development of the tort law shows a continuous tendency, which is naturally not uniform in all common law countries, to recognize as worthy of legal protection, interests which were previously not protected at all or were infrequently protected and it is unlikely that this tendency has ceased or is going to cease in future.”

There are dicta both ancient and modern that the known categories of tort are not closed, and that novelty of a claim is not an absolute defence. Thus, in Jay Laxmi Salt works (P) Ltd. vs. The State of Gujarat. JT 1994 (3) SC 492 (vide para 7), the Supreme Court observed:

“Law of torts being a developing law its frontiers are incapable of being strictly barricaded”.

In Ashby vs. White (1703) 2 Ld. Raym 938, it was observed (vide
Pratt C.J.):

“Torts are infinitely various, not limited or confined”.

In Donoghue vs. Stevenson (1932) AC 562 (619) (HL), it was observed by the House of Lords (per Macmillan, L.J.):

“The conception of legal responsibility may develop in adaptation to altering social conditions and standards. The criterion of judgment must adjust and adapt itself to the changing circumstances of life.”

The above view was followed in Rookes vs. Barnard (1964) AC 1129 (1169) (HL) and Home Officer vs. Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd (1970) 2 All ER 294 (HL).

Source: http://www.judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.aspx?filename=31421