Negligence in Tort Laws with Meaning, Essentials and Landmark Case Laws

Meaning and Definition

Negligence, according to Winfield, is the breach of a legal duty to take care, resulting in damage undesired by the defendant to the plaintiff. In simple terms, negligence means the failure to exercise that degree of care which a reasonable and prudent person would have exercised in similar circumstances.

Negligence is ordinarily an unintentional tort. Liability is imposed not because the defendant intended harm, but because the law expects persons to take reasonable care so as to avoid foreseeable injury to others.

Negligence has a dual significance in tort law:

• It may denote a mode of committing certain torts e.g., negligently or carelessly committing trespass, nuisance or defamation, and
• It is also recognized as an independent tort in itself where careless conduct causes legally recognized damage.

Forms of Negligence

Negligence is commonly described in three forms.

1. Nonfeasance means failure to do something which a person ought to have done.
2. Misfeasance means doing a lawful act in an improper or careless manner.
3. Malfeasance means doing an act which ought not to have been done at all.

Essential Ingredients of Negligence

In an action for negligence, the plaintiff must generally establish the following essentials:

1. Duty of Care

The first requirement is that the defendant must owe a legal duty of care to the plaintiff. A mere moral obligation is not sufficient. The law must recognize that, in the circumstances, the defendant was under an obligation to act with reasonable care toward the plaintiff.

The modern foundation of the law relating to duty of care is Donoghue v. Stevenson. In that case, Lord Atkin laid down the celebrated Neighbor Principle. He stated that a person must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which he can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure his neighbor. A neighbor, in law, means persons who are so closely and directly affected by one’s act that they ought reasonably to be kept in contemplation. Duty of care is based on reasonable foreseeability of harm and proximity between the parties.

Reasonable Foreseeability

Reasonable foreseeability is one of the central ideas in the law of negligence. A defendant is expected to guard against those consequences that are reasonably foreseeable, not against every remote or fanciful possibility.

This idea is well illustrated by Bolton v. Stone. In that case, a cricket ball had been hit out of the ground and injured the plaintiff. The House of Lords held that negligence was not established because the chance of such injury was extremely small and not such as would make a reasonable person take further precautions. The case shows that a mere possibility of harm is not enough; the risk must be reasonably foreseeable and sufficiently probable.

In Bourhill v. Young, a pregnant woman heard the noise of a motor accident and later saw its aftermath. She suffered nervous shock and claimed damages. The House of Lords held that the motorcyclist did not owe her a duty because she was not within the area of foreseeable danger. The case is frequently used to show that foreseeability of the plaintiff and foreseeability of the kind of harm are essential in establishing negligence.

Rescue Cases

Where danger is created by the defendant’s negligence, it is often foreseeable that someone may attempt a rescue. If a rescuer suffers injury while trying to save life or property, the rescuer may recover damages from the negligent defendant.

The leading case is Haynes v. Harwood. Horses were negligently left unattended in a crowded street, creating danger to the public. A policeman tried to stop them and was injured. He was allowed to recover. The case is important for two reasons:

• rescue is regarded as a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s negligence, and
• the defence of volenti non fit injuria usually does not apply against a rescuer acting under duty or natural impulse rather than by free and voluntary acceptance of risk.

2. Breach of Duty

Once a duty of care is established, it must next be shown that the defendant breached that duty. Breach of duty means failure to conform to the standard of care required by law.

Standard of Care

The standard of care in negligence is that of the reasonable person. The test is objective. The court compares the conduct of the defendant with that of a reasonable and prudent person placed in similar circumstances. The question is not whether the defendant acted according to his personal judgment or habits, but whether an ordinary careful person would have acted in that manner.

The classic statement of this principle is found in Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co., where negligence was described as the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.

Factors Affecting the Standard

The degree of care required depends on the circumstances of the case. The greater the risk, the greater the care expected.

3. Causation

It is not enough to prove duty and breach. The plaintiff must also establish that the defendant’s breach caused the damage. If an independent intervening act breaks the chain of causation, liability may fail. But if the defendant’s negligence remained an operative and effective cause of the damage, liability may still continue.

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. is often referred to in connection with the limits of negligence liability. The case is important for showing that negligence is relational and that liability depends upon the foreseeable risk to the plaintiff. It underlines the idea that breach and damage must stand in a legally recognized relationship.

4. Damage

Negligence is generally actionable only on proof of actual damage. Mere carelessness without damage does not give rise to an actionable claim.

This distinguishes negligence from torts such as trespass to person or false imprisonment, which are actionable per se. In negligence, the plaintiff must show legally recognized harm resulting from the defendant’s breach of duty.

Professional Negligence

Where the defendant is a professional, the standard of care is not that of an ordinary layperson. It is the standard of an ordinarily competent professional possessing and exercising reasonable skill in that profession.

The Bolam principle is relevant here. Under the Bolam test, a professional is not negligent if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of professional opinion skilled in that particular field.

In Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court held that a doctor is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and to exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the highest nor the lowest degree of competence is required; the test is that of an ordinarily competent practitioner in that field.

Res Ipsa Loquitur

Res ipsa loquitur means “the thing speaks for itself.” It is a rule of evidence and not a rule of substantive law.

Where the accident is of such a nature that it ordinarily would not happen without negligence, and the thing causing the accident was under the management or control of the defendant, the court may infer negligence unless the defendant offers a satisfactory explanation.

Conditions for applicability of the rule of res ipsa loquitur:

1. the occurrence is such as does not ordinarily happen without negligence,
2. the instrumentality causing harm was under the control of the defendant, and
3. the exact cause of the accident is unknown to the plaintiff but is within the defendant’s knowledge or control.

The doctrine does not automatically make the defendant liable, but it shifts the evidentiary burden by permitting an inference of negligence.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti is the leading Indian authority. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti, an old clock tower situated at Chandni Chowk, Delhi, collapsed and caused the death of several persons.

The clock tower was under the control and management of the Municipal Corporation. It was about 80 years old, although its normal expected life was only around 40–45 years. The Corporation had failed to carry out proper inspection, maintenance, and necessary repairs.

The Supreme Court held the Municipal Corporation liable. The Court applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur, because a properly maintained clock tower does not ordinarily collapse. Since the structure was under the Corporation’s control, its collapse itself indicated negligence.