Is there a law of tort or only a law of torts? Two of the most, if not the two most, highly regarded writers on tortious liability differed on that question. Sir John Salmond maintained that outside a number of specific torts, no tortious liability exists. His view is that there is only a law of torts. Sir Percy Winfield maintained that it is a tort to cause harm to other persons in the absence of any legal justification or excuse. His view is that there is a law of tort. Trying to harmonize the two views is worthwhile. The effort alone would enhance our understanding of the law of tortious liability, our ability to apply it and our capacity to participate in its development. There is no wholly satisfactory definition of “tort”. An informative answer to the question “What is tort?” can begin by saying that there is such a thing as the law of tort, and continue by giving examples and illustrations, referring to the operation of specific torts. Such an answer spares a thought for the Salmond view while embracing the Winfield view. Remedying injury due to mischief is the motif. Common law tort’s history is long, although not nearly as long as Chinese tort law’s history. Tort law is essentially judge-made. There is some overlap between tort and crime and between tort and breach of contract. While primarily compensatory, tort damages can also be vindicatory and/or deterrent. Judges have said so with reference to various torts. In stating what is essential to an action in tort, judges have often done so in ways supportive of the Winfield view. To understand common law tortious liability, it helps to look at it together with comparable liability under Islamic jurisprudence and codes like the Corpus Juris Civilis and the Code Napoleon. When different torts clash, a “neutral umpire” is needed, and to found in something wider than the different torts in the contest. Governed by generalities, tort law accommodates specificities. We can accept Winfield’s view while seeing Salmond’s point. Law must keep pace with the times. To that forward-looking purpose, Winfield’s thinking seems better suited than Salmond’s.