Negligence (Tort)

Negligence is one of the most significant concepts in the law of torts. It refers to the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in similar circumstances, resulting in damage or injury to another. In simple terms, negligence means carelessness amounting to the breach of a legal duty, causing harm to another person. It embodies the principle that every individual must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that could foreseeably injure others.

Meaning and Definition

The word negligence originates from the Latin term negligentia, meaning “failing to pick up.” In legal parlance, it denotes the breach of a duty to take care, which causes damage undesired by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Winfield defines negligence as:

“The breach of a legal duty to take care, which results in damage, undesired by the defendant, to the plaintiff.”

Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856) offers a classic judicial definition, where Alderson B. stated:

“Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.”

Thus, negligence in tort law has three essential elements: duty of care, breach of that duty, and resultant damage.

Essentials of Negligence

For an action for negligence to succeed, the following elements must be established:

1. Existence of a Legal Duty: The defendant must owe a legal duty of care to the plaintiff. This duty arises when the law recognises a relationship between the parties such that the defendant is under an obligation to exercise reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm.
2. Breach of Duty: The defendant must have failed to meet the standard of care required by law. The standard is that of a “reasonable person,” not of a perfect one.
3. Causation: The plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s breach of duty caused the injury or damage — both in fact (cause-in-fact) and in law (proximate cause).
4. Actual Damage: The plaintiff must have suffered actual harm, whether physical injury, property damage, or economic loss, as a result of the defendant’s negligence.

If all these elements coexist, the defendant is liable in tort for negligence.

Duty of Care

The concept of duty of care forms the foundation of the law of negligence. It refers to a legal obligation to act with care towards others to avoid causing foreseeable harm.
The modern law of duty of care was established in the famous case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932), known as the “snail in the bottle” case. Lord Atkin laid down the neighbour principle, stating:

“You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, is my neighbour? Persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation.”

This principle extended liability beyond contractual relationships, making negligence an independent tort.
In India, the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti (1966) applied this principle, holding the authorities liable for the collapse of a clock tower due to poor maintenance, which caused fatalities.

Breach of Duty

Once the duty of care is established, the next question is whether the defendant breached that duty. Breach is determined by comparing the defendant’s conduct with that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances.
Factors considered include:

• The probability of harm.
• The gravity of potential injury.
• The burden or cost of taking precautions.
• The social utility of the defendant’s conduct.

In Bolton v. Stone (1951), a cricket ball struck a passer-by outside the ground. The House of Lords held that since the likelihood of such an event was extremely low and precautions had been taken, there was no negligence.

Causation and Remoteness of Damage

For liability to arise, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s breach caused the harm and that the harm was not too remote.
Two types of causation are considered:

1. Causation in Fact: Determined by the “but for” test — whether the damage would have occurred “but for” the defendant’s negligence.
   • In Barnett v. Chelsea & Kensington Hospital (1969), the hospital was not liable as the death would have occurred even with proper treatment.
2. Causation in Law (Remoteness): The defendant is liable only for consequences that are reasonably foreseeable.
   • In The Wagon Mound (No. 1) (1961), it was held that only foreseeable types of damage are compensable.

Damage

The final essential element is damage or injury resulting from the defendant’s negligence. Without proof of damage, the tort is incomplete. Damage may be:

• Physical: Bodily injury or harm to property.
• Psychological: Recognised mental suffering caused by negligence.
• Economic: Financial loss arising directly from negligent conduct.

The damage must be real and not merely speculative.

Types of Negligence

Negligence may occur in various forms depending on the context:

1. Civil Negligence: Breach of private duty leading to civil liability.
2. Criminal Negligence: Gross negligence resulting in criminal liability, such as death caused by reckless driving.
3. Professional Negligence (Malpractice): Failure by professionals (doctors, lawyers, engineers) to exercise the standard of care expected of their profession.
4. Contributory Negligence: Where the plaintiff’s own negligence contributes to the harm, reducing the compensation recoverable.
5. Composite Negligence: Where multiple defendants jointly cause harm to the plaintiff.

Defences to Negligence

The defendant may escape or reduce liability in certain circumstances through recognised defences:

1. Contributory Negligence: If the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to the harm, damages may be reduced proportionally.
2. Volenti Non Fit Injuria (Consent): If the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of harm, no compensation is awarded. For example, a spectator injured at a sports event assumes certain inherent risks.
3. Act of God: Natural events beyond human control, such as earthquakes or floods, may exempt liability.
4. Inevitable Accident: If the harm could not have been prevented despite reasonable care, no liability arises.
5. Statutory Authority: Acts done under lawful authority may not constitute negligence if performed reasonably.

Special Applications of Negligence

1. Negligence in Medical Practice: Medical negligence occurs when a healthcare professional fails to exercise reasonable skill or care. In Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005), the Supreme Court held that a doctor is liable only when his conduct falls below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner.
2. Negligence by Public Authorities: Public bodies may be liable for negligent maintenance of infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, or public buildings.
3. Occupiers’ Liability: Owners or occupiers of premises owe a duty of care to lawful visitors and, in some cases, even to trespassers.
4. Negligence in Motor Accidents: Common in road traffic cases; liability is determined based on breach of duty and contributory fault.

Standard of Care

The standard of care varies with circumstances but is generally that of a reasonable and prudent person. Special considerations apply to:

• Children: Expected to exercise the care of a child of similar age and experience.
• Professionals: Judged against the standard of competent professionals in that field.
• Skilled Workers: Must exercise the care expected of skilled persons in their trade.

Remedies

The primary remedy for negligence is damages — monetary compensation for loss or injury suffered. The measure of damages includes:

• Medical expenses and loss of earnings.
• Compensation for pain, suffering, and mental distress.
• Cost of repairing or replacing damaged property.

In severe cases, courts may also grant injunctions or specific relief to prevent continuing negligence.

Leading Indian Cases

• Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti (1966): The Corporation was held liable for negligence when a clock tower collapsed due to poor maintenance.
• Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer (2003): Established that public authorities owe a duty of care to citizens using public utilities.
• Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole (1969): The Supreme Court laid down the duty of care owed by doctors towards patients.
• Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005): Distinguished between civil and criminal negligence in medical practice.

Importance of Negligence in Tort Law

Negligence is the cornerstone of modern tort law and has wide-ranging applications in civil, medical, industrial, and administrative contexts. It promotes:

• Accountability: Ensuring individuals and organisations act responsibly.
• Deterrence: Encouraging higher standards of care in professional and public conduct.
• Compensation: Providing redress to victims of careless conduct.