Short answers, pulled from the story.
The word tort first appeared in a legal context in the 1580s. This term emerged after the Norman Conquest when fines were paid only to courts or the king and a wrong became known as a tort or trespass. The concept of compensating wrongs dates back to the Germanic system of compensatory fines that operated without clear distinction between crimes and other wrongs.
The modern tort of negligence was established through the landmark Scottish case of Donoghue v Stevenson in 1932. Mrs. Donoghue drank from an opaque bottle containing a decomposed snail and claimed that it had made her ill, but she could not sue for breach of contract and instead sued for negligence. The majority determined that the definition of negligence can be divided into four component parts: duty, breach, damages, and causation.
Indian tort law includes a system of absolute liability for businesses engaged in hazardous activity established by the landmark case of M. C. Mehta v. Union of India in 1987. This doctrine holds an enterprise absolutely liable, without exceptions, to compensate everyone affected by any accident resulting from the operation of hazardous activity. This differs greatly from the English approach, which limits liability to damage to land or interests in land.
The tort system for the majority of personal injuries in New Zealand was scrapped with the establishment of the Accident Compensation Corporation following recommendations from the Royal Commission in 1967. Professor Patrick Atiyah's scholarship in Accidents, Compensation and the Law in 1970 articulated the rationale for eliminating personal injury torts. The tort system for medical malpractice was also scrapped in New Zealand as part of this no-fault compensation scheme.
The Supreme Court recognized privacy as a constitutional right in India in 2017. The right to privacy is implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees protections for personal liberties. In contrast, neither intentional infliction of emotional distress nor negligent infliction of emotional distress is recognized as a tort in Indian jurisprudence.