Negligence in Tort
The Latin word negligentia, which means "failing to pick up," is where the word negligence originates in the law of torts. In legalese, negligence denotes the failure to exercise a standard of care that a reasonable person would have in that specific scenario. In the broad sense, negligence refers to an act of carelessness.
- Meaning of Negligence
- Definition of Negligence as a Tort
- Negligence as a Tort
- Essentials of Negligence
- Defences of Negligence in Tort
- Conclusion
The main elements to take into account when determining whether someone's actions fall short of reasonable care are the extent to which harm could come from their acts, the chance that harm will occur, and the expense of taking preventative measures to lessen or eliminate the risk of harm. Someone may be able to sue for damages if they are injured due to someone else's negligence. A loss of this kind could be monetary, in the form of property destruction, mental illness, or physical harm.
Meaning of Negligence
Simple negligence is referred to as "negligence". From a legal perspective, it indicates that the individual did not exercise the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the same circumstances. Legally speaking, when it is reasonably foreseeable that acting otherwise would probably cause injury, one is usually obliged to take prudence. Negligence is a mode in which failing to take such appropriate safeguards may result in numerous types of injuries.
In the case of Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works Co.
In this case, According to one definition, negligence is the act of doing something that a sensible or reasonable man would not do, or failing to do something that a reasonable man would do.
Definition of Negligence as a Tort
- According to Winfield and Jolowicz, "negligence is the breach of a legal duty to take care that results in damage to the plaintiff that the defendant did not intend."
- Lord Wright clarifies: "Negligence means more than headless or careless conduct, whether in commission or omission; it properly connotes the complex concept of duty, breach, and damage thereby suffered by the person to whom the duty was owed."
- According to Charlesworth and Percy, there are three definitions of carelessness in modern forensic discourse. These are: (i) a state of mind that is contrary to purpose; (ii) careless behaviour; and (iii) a breach of a duty to exercise care imposed by common or statutory law. All three interpretations are valid in various situations, but one does not always preclude the others.
You Can Also Check
- Inevitable accident under the Law of Torts
- Statutory Authority as Defence to Torts
- Trespass to the Person and Trespass to the Land
- Injuria Sine Damno
Negligence as a Tort
In civil actions and sometimes in criminal matters, the defendant is bound to liability by the term "negligence". In Criminal law, liability is established by the degree and amount of negligence, whereas carelessness generally determines the level of liability depending on the amount of damages incurred.
Legal wrongs committed by one party against another are known as torts. Because some losses or damages between parties happen in the absence of a contract, one party cannot lawfully sue the other for negligence, a type of tort.
Essentials of Negligence
To commit the tort of carelessness, six prerequisites must be fulfilled. A behaviour will only be considered negligent if all of the following criteria are met:
Duty of Care
It is one of the prerequisites for negligence for someone to be held accountable.
It implies that everyone has a responsibility to use caution around other people when acting. Although this obligation is present in all actions, it is not permissible for it to be immoral, unethical, or religious. Instead, it must be legal.
In the case of, Donoghue v. Stevenson
In this case, Lord Atkin said that It's amazing how hard it is to locate broad-application declarations describing the relationships between the parties that give rise to the responsibility of English authorities. It is necessary to state if a duty exists in those specific circumstances, as the courts are concerned with the actual relations that are brought before them in actual litigation.
Duty Towards the Plaintiff
An obligation arises when the law recognizes a connection between the defendant and the plaintiff and requires the defendant to treat the plaintiff in a specific manner. The court will usually determine whether or not the defendant's allegation of owing the plaintiff a duty of care is substantiated.
In the case of, Bourhill v. Young
In this case, The plaintiff, a fishwife, was assisted in putting her basket on her back by a motorcyclist who had passed the tram when they collided with another vehicle at a distance of fifteen yards, which was on the opposite side of the tram. The motorbike rider's instantaneous death was hidden from the plaintiff's view due to the tram's placement between her and the accident scene. After the body was removed from the scene, she went to investigate the sound of the collision and saw some blood that had spilt over the pavement. Following this incident, she experienced a psychological breakdown and gave birth to an 8-month-old stillborn child. As a result, she filed a lawsuit against the motorcyclist's agents. It was decided that the deceased owed the plaintiff no duty of care, hence she was not entitled to any compensation from the deceased's agents.
Breach of Duty
A breach of duty occurs when due care is not used as necessary in a certain circumstance. The normal level of caution or that of a reasonable man is the benchmark. There is no negligence if the defendant has behaved as a man of reasonable caution would.
In the case of, Bylth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co.
In this case, Alderson B. Stated that "Being negligent is the act of doing something that a prudent and reasonable person would not do, or failing to do something that a reasonable man would do, guided by those considerations which normally regulate the conduct of human affairs." The law demands the kind of caution that a wise man would follow.
In the case of Ramesh Kumar Nayak v. Union of India, It was held that the postal authorities were liable because they had a duty to maintain the post office premises and because the collapse occurred as a result of their breach of that duty, they were liable to pay compensation. The defendant was injured on a post office compound wall that postal authorities neglected to keep in good repair.
Actual Cause
In this instance, the plaintiff who is suing the defendant for negligence must show that the defendant's negligence caused the plaintiff's damages. This is commonly referred to as "but-for" causation, meaning that the plaintiff would not have suffered the damages if the defendant had not acted as they did.
Harm to the Plaintiff
It is insufficient to prove that the defendant did not use reasonable care. It must also be shown that the defendant's failure to exercise reasonable care caused losses to the plaintiff, to whom the defendant owed a duty of care.
Proximate Cause
"Legal cause," or the reason that the law acknowledges as the main reason for the injury, is what is meant by "proximate cause." It might not be the final occurrence before the injury happens, nor it might not be the first to start a chain of events that resulted in an injury. Rather, it is an activity that, on its own, achieves predictable results without the help of others. In a negligence case, the defendant's liability is limited to the damages that his acts could have reasonably been expected to cause.
You can also check
Defences of Negligence in Tort
Below given are the detailed explanations for the Defences of Negligence in Tort.
Negligence of the Tort
Under the Law of Torts, the defendants may assert the defence of contributory negligence in cases when both the plaintiff's and the defendant's fault resulted in a tort or unlawful action. According to common law, a person who caused the injury they are complaining about via their negligence is not entitled to pursue legal action against the other party. Since he will be regarded as the creator of his error in legal terms.
Under the following circumstances, the defendants cannot be held liable-
The plaintiff may have prevented the defendant's negligence by using ordinary caution.
By using ordinary care, the defendant could not have prevented the plaintiff's negligence and its consequences.
Both the plaintiff and the defendant have shown an equal lack of reasonable care, and the former cannot sue the latter for the same.
In the case of Butterfield v. Forrester
In this case, the defendant had no right to erect a pole across a Derby public highway. The plaintiff was riding in that direction at eight o'clock in the evening in August when dusk was approaching, but he could still see the barrier from a hundred yards away. Riding aggressively, he collided with the pole and fell with the horse. It was decided that because the plaintiff was also negligent, he could not sue for damages.
Act of God or Vis Major
An "act of god" is a natural disaster, such as a volcano, strong winds, earthquakes, or a torrential downpour. To be eligible for this defence, two things must happen:
Natural forces must be in action.
The event needs to be exceptional rather than something that was expected.
It is a direct, forceful, abrupt, and irresistible act of nature that could not have been predicted by human intelligence or, if it had, could not have been stopped with any amount of effort or skill on the part of humans. For example, a storm, an unusually heavy rainfall, an exceptionally high tide, an earthquake, etc.
In this case, Nichols v. Marsland
In this case, the defendant owned many man-made lakes on his property, none of which had been negligently built or maintained. Four rural bridges were washed away as several of the reservoirs burst due to an unusually severe downpour. It was decided that since the water escaped due to a divine act, the defendant was not responsible.
Inevitable Accident
Even when the defendant used reasonable care, an inevitable accident occurs when the plaintiff sustains an unexpected injury as a result of an unforeseen and unavoidable event. The defendant must demonstrate that he had no intention of hurting the plaintiff and that he lacked the means to prevent the harm by exercising reasonable caution. An accident is inevitable if it is something that cannot be avoided with common sense, prudence, and expertise. It denotes a physically inevitable accident.
In the case of Stanley v. Powell
In this case, following a pheasant shoot in which the plaintiff and the defendant were participants, it was decided that the defendant was not liable for the accident because it was an inevitable accident and that the plaintiff was hurt when the defendant's bullet struck a pheasant and glanced off an oak tree.
Conclusion
This article talks about Negligence in Tort. Negligence means when a person's careless actions lead to damage or injury to any other person. Negligence may occur due to carelessness or non-performance of obligations and duties of either party. In case of negligence, the party that has faced damage can make the other party liable for their negligence or carelessness. As given in the article to prove an act to be negligent, the essentials like duty of care, duty towards the plaintiff, breach of duty, actual cause, harm to the plaintiff and proximate cause should be proved.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
When one party owes another party a duty of care and neglects to exercise reasonable caution to prevent harming that other, that behaviour is considered negligence.
Usually, negligence is defined as acting carelessly and harming another person.
One example of negligence is when A motorist crashes into another vehicle after running a stop sign.
A professional obligation owed to a patient, a duty breach, proximate cause or causal connection prompted by a duty breach, and consequent in- juries or damages sustained are among these legal factors.
The obligation to act or refrain from acting, the breach of that duty, the actual and proximate cause of injury, and damages are the components of a negligence claim.
Yes, a person can be held liable for negligence even if they didn't intend to cause harm. Negligence is based on the failure to exercise reasonable care, not on intent. The focus is on whether the defendant's actions (or inactions) fell below the expected standard of care, regardless of their intentions. This is why negligence is considered a form of unintentional tort, as opposed to intentional torts like assault or battery.
Res ipsa loquitur, Latin for "the thing speaks for itself," is a legal doctrine used in some negligence cases where direct evidence of negligence is lacking. It allows the plaintiff to use circumstantial evidence to infer that the harm would not have occurred without negligence. To apply res ipsa loquitur, typically three conditions must be met: (1) the accident is of a kind that ordinarily doesn't occur without negligence, (2) the instrumentality causing injury was under the defendant's exclusive control, and (3) the plaintiff did not contribute to the injury. If these conditions are met, the burden of proof may shift to the defendant to show they were not negligent.
Contributory negligence and comparative negligence are two different approaches to handling cases where the plaintiff's own actions contributed to their injury. Under contributory negligence, if the plaintiff is found to be even slightly at fault, they cannot recover any damages. This is a harsh "all or nothing" approach. Comparative negligence, on the other hand, allows the plaintiff to recover damages, but reduces the amount based on their percentage of fault. Most jurisdictions now use some form of comparative negligence as it's considered more fair and flexible.
The "eggshell skull" rule, also known as the "thin skull" rule, states that a defendant takes the plaintiff as they find them. This means that if a defendant's negligence causes more severe harm to a particularly vulnerable plaintiff, the defendant is still liable for all the resulting damages, even if they couldn't have foreseen the extent of the harm. For example, if a defendant's negligent actions cause a minor injury to someone with a pre-existing condition, leading to more serious complications, the defendant would be liable for all resulting damages.
Negligence per se is a legal doctrine that automatically establishes a breach of duty if the defendant violated a statute or regulation designed to prevent the type of harm that occurred. In contrast, ordinary negligence requires proving that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care. With negligence per se, if the plaintiff can show that (1) the defendant violated a relevant statute, (2) the statute was intended to prevent this type of harm, and (3) the plaintiff was in the class of people the statute was meant to protect, then the breach of duty is automatically established. The plaintiff still needs to prove causation and damages.
Expert testimony plays a crucial role in professional negligence cases, particularly in establishing the standard of care. Its importance stems from several factors:
Negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) is a type of tort claim that allows recovery for emotional or psychological injury, even in the absence of physical harm. It differs from ordinary negligence in several ways:
The four essential elements of negligence are: duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages. A plaintiff must prove all four elements to succeed in a negligence claim. Duty of care refers to the legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid harming others. Breach of duty occurs when the defendant fails to meet the standard of care. Causation means the breach directly caused the plaintiff's harm. Damages are the actual losses suffered by the plaintiff.
Duty of care and standard of care are related but distinct concepts in negligence law. Duty of care refers to the legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid harming others. It establishes whether the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff. Standard of care, on the other hand, defines the level of care the defendant should have exercised to fulfill that duty. It determines how a reasonable person would have acted in similar circumstances and is used to assess whether the defendant breached their duty.
The "reasonable person" standard is a legal concept used to determine if a defendant breached their duty of care. It asks whether a hypothetical person of ordinary prudence would have acted similarly in the same circumstances. This standard is objective and doesn't consider the defendant's personal characteristics or abilities, except in special cases. Courts use this benchmark to evaluate if the defendant's actions were reasonable and met the expected standard of care.
The "but for" test is a method used to establish causation in negligence cases. It asks: "But for the defendant's actions, would the harm have occurred?" If the answer is no, then the defendant's actions are considered a cause of the harm. This test helps determine if there's a direct link between the defendant's breach of duty and the plaintiff's injuries. However, it's important to note that the "but for" test is not the only way to establish causation, especially in complex cases with multiple contributing factors.
Proximate cause, also known as legal cause, is a key concept in negligence law that limits the extent of a defendant's liability. It addresses whether the harm caused was a foreseeable result of the defendant's actions. Even if the defendant's breach of duty was the actual cause of the harm (established through the "but for" test), they may not be held liable if the harm was too remote or unforeseeable. Proximate cause helps ensure that defendants are only held responsible for reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions.
Custom and industry standards can play a significant role in determining negligence, particularly in professional negligence cases. They help establish the standard of care expected in a particular field or industry. However, following custom or industry standards doesn't automatically shield a defendant from liability. Courts recognize that an entire industry might have substandard practices. Conversely, exceeding industry standards doesn't necessarily mean a defendant wasn't negligent. Custom and industry standards are considered evidence of what's reasonable, but they're not conclusive. The ultimate question is whether the defendant's actions were reasonable under the circumstances.
Ordinary negligence and gross negligence differ in the degree of carelessness involved:
Misfeasance and nonfeasance are two types of conduct that can lead to negligence claims. Misfeasance refers to doing something improperly or incorrectly. It involves taking an action but doing it negligently, causing harm. For example, a doctor performing a surgery incorrectly. Nonfeasance, on the other hand, refers to not doing something that should have been done. It involves failing to take an action when there was a duty to act. For instance, a lifeguard failing to rescue a drowning swimmer. Traditionally, courts were more likely to find liability for misfeasance than nonfeasance, but modern law recognizes both can lead to negligence claims.
Foreseeability plays a crucial role in negligence law, particularly in determining duty of care and proximate cause. For duty of care, it helps establish whether the defendant should have reasonably anticipated that their actions (or inactions) could harm the plaintiff. In the context of proximate cause, foreseeability limits the scope of a defendant's liability to harm that was reasonably foreseeable. If the harm was so unexpected or far-removed from the defendant's actions that it couldn't have been reasonably anticipated, the defendant may not be held liable even if their actions were the actual cause of the harm.
Duty of care in cases involving omissions (failures to act) is generally more limited than in cases involving actions. Traditionally, the law has been reluctant to impose liability for pure omissions, based on the principle that individuals don't have a general duty to help others. However, there are exceptions where a duty to act may arise:
The "learned hand formula" is a method for determining whether a defendant's conduct was negligent, proposed by Judge Learned Hand. It's expressed as B < PL, where:
Vicarious liability is a legal principle that holds one party responsible for the negligent actions of another, even if the first party wasn't directly at fault. The most common application is in employer-employee relationships, where an employer can be held liable for an employee's negligence committed within the scope of employment. This principle is based on the idea that the employer benefits from the employee's work and has control over their actions, so they should also bear responsibility for any harm caused. Vicarious liability extends the reach of negligence law and ensures that victims have recourse against parties with deeper pockets, increasing their chances of full compensation.
The rescue doctrine is a legal principle that allows a rescuer to recover damages from the party whose negligence created the need for rescue. Key aspects of this doctrine include:
The "last clear chance" doctrine is a rule that can allow a negligent plaintiff to recover damages from a negligent defendant in certain circumstances. It applies when:
The "duty to rescue" varies significantly across different legal systems:
Assumption of risk is a defense to negligence claims based on the principle that a plaintiff who voluntarily assumes a known risk cannot then complain about harm resulting from that risk. Key aspects include:
The "firefighter's rule" is a legal doctrine that generally prevents firefighters and other first responders from suing for injuries sustained while responding to emergencies. Key points include:
Also Read
07 Aug'25 12:33 PM
07 Aug'25 12:27 PM
06 Aug'25 10:56 AM
05 Aug'25 12:00 PM
02 Jul'25 06:07 PM
02 Jul'25 05:48 PM
02 Jul'25 05:48 PM
02 Jul'25 05:48 PM
02 Jul'25 05:44 PM
02 Jul'25 05:42 PM