Negligence in Law of Torts
Negligence in Law of Torts
1. Meaning of Negligence
Negligence is the breach of a legal duty of care which results in damage undesired by the defendant to the plaintiff.
It arises when a person fails to exercise the care which a reasonable person would have exercised in similar circumstances.
👉 In simple words: Negligence = Duty of Care + Breach of Duty + Damage caused by Breach
2. Essential Ingredients
For negligence to be established, three key elements must be proved:
(a) Duty of Care
The defendant must owe a duty of care towards the plaintiff. This duty is not owed to the whole world, but to those who are closely and directly affected by one’s actions.
Case Law: Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)
The famous “snail in the ginger beer bottle” case. The manufacturer owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumer, even though no direct contract existed. Lord Atkin laid down the “Neighbour Principle”:
You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.
(b) Breach of Duty
The defendant must fail to observe the standard of care expected from a reasonable person. The test is objective – What would a reasonable man of ordinary prudence do in such a situation?
Case Law: Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856)
Water pipes burst due to severe frost. The company was not held liable because they had taken reasonable precautions, and the frost was beyond normal expectation.
The court defined negligence as:
“Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.”
(c) Resulting Damage
The plaintiff must have suffered actual damage as a direct result of the defendant’s breach. No liability arises for mere breach of duty without proof of damage.
Case Law: Barnett v. Chelsea & Kensington Hospital (1969)
A man went to hospital after drinking tea poisoned with arsenic. The doctor negligently failed to examine him. He died, but evidence showed that even with treatment, death was inevitable.
Held: The hospital was not liable as the negligence did not cause the damage (death).
3. Standard of Care
The level of care required depends on the situation. Courts usually adopt the standard of a “reasonable man.” However, the standard varies:
Children – judged by the conduct of a reasonable child of that age.
Professionals – judged by the standard of an ordinary skilled professional.
Case Law: Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957)
A doctor is not negligent if he acts in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical professionals. This is known as the Bolam Test.
4. Defenses to Negligence
A defendant can escape liability if:
Contributory Negligence – When the plaintiff himself contributed to the damage.
Case Law: Butterfield v. Forrester (1809) – Plaintiff rode negligently and collided with an obstruction. Since he also failed to take care, damages were reduced.
Volenti Non Fit Injuria (Consent) – If the plaintiff voluntarily agrees to take risk, no claim lies.
Case Law: Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club (1933) – Spectator injured during a car race; held, by attending the race he consented to risks.
Act of God or Inevitable Accident – No liability where damage is caused by natural forces beyond human control.
5. Important Indian Case
Though you said no external law, Indian case law helps for context:
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti (1966)
A clock tower collapsed killing people. It was 80 years old and not properly maintained. Held: The corporation was negligent as it had a duty to maintain structures under its control.
6. Summary Table
| Element | Explanation | Leading Case |
|---|---|---|
| Duty of Care | Defendant owes duty to foreseeable plaintiff | Donoghue v. Stevenson |
| Breach of Duty | Failure to act as a reasonable man | Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks |
| Damage | Plaintiff must suffer actual harm caused by breach | Barnett v. Chelsea Hospital |
| Standard of Care | Varies (reasonable man, child, professional) | Bolam v. Friern Hospital |
| Defenses | Contributory negligence, consent, act of God | Butterfield v. Forrester, Hall v. Brooklands |
✅ Conclusion:
Negligence in tort law is not mere carelessness but a legal wrong. It rests on the foundation of duty, breach, and damage. Courts assess negligence using the reasonable man test, while allowing defenses like contributory negligence or consent.
RELATED Blog
0 comments