Negligence as a Tort under Law of Torts
⚖️ Negligence as a Tort
1. Introduction to Tort of Negligence
Negligence is one of the most important and common torts in the law of torts. It arises when a person fails to take reasonable care to avoid causing injury or loss to another person.
Tort means a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, for which the law provides a remedy.
Negligence is the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation.
In simple terms, negligence is carelessness causing harm.
2. Essentials of Negligence
For an act or omission to amount to negligence in tort law, the following essentials must be established:
| Essentials | Explanation |
|---|---|
| 1. Existence of Duty of Care | The defendant owed a legal duty to the plaintiff to take reasonable care. |
| 2. Breach of Duty | The defendant failed to perform that duty (acted carelessly or omitted to act). |
| 3. Causation | The breach of duty caused harm or injury to the plaintiff. |
| 4. Damage or Loss | The plaintiff suffered actual damage, loss, or injury as a result of the breach. |
| 5. No Contributory Negligence | The plaintiff did not contribute to the damage by their own negligence (this can reduce damages). |
3. Duty of Care
The concept of duty of care means that a person must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that could foreseeably injure others.
The famous test for duty of care was given by Lord Atkin in Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932), known as 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."
A "neighbour" is anyone who is so closely and directly affected by your act that you ought reasonably to have them in mind.
4. Breach of Duty
Breach occurs when the defendant's conduct falls below the standard expected of a reasonable person.
The standard is objective — what would a reasonable person have done?
Factors affecting breach include:
Probability of harm
Seriousness of harm
Cost and difficulty of precautions
Social utility of the defendant’s conduct
5. Causation and Damage
The breach must cause damage to the plaintiff.
The damage must be actual and measurable.
There must be a direct causal link between breach and harm.
The harm must be reasonably foreseeable.
6. Types of Negligence
Pure negligence: Careless act causing harm.
Gross negligence: Extreme carelessness, reckless disregard.
Contributory negligence: Where plaintiff's own negligence contributed to harm.
Negligence per se: Violation of a statute causing harm.
7. Defenses to Negligence
Contributory negligence: Plaintiff’s own fault reduces or bars claim.
Volenti non fit injuria (Consent): Plaintiff voluntarily accepted the risk.
Inevitable accident: No negligence, accident unavoidable.
⚖️ Important Case Laws on Negligence
1. Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) AC 562 (UK House of Lords)
Facts: Mrs. Donoghue drank ginger beer bought by a friend, found a snail in it, and fell ill.
Held: The manufacturer owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumer. This case established the modern law of negligence and the neighbour principle.
Significance: Laid foundation for duty of care and foreseeability.
2. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case) (1987) AIR 1086 (Supreme Court of India)
Facts: An oleum gas leak from a factory caused serious harm.
Held: The principle of absolute liability was established for hazardous industries, stricter than negligence.
Significance: Expanded tort liability for dangerous activities; strict standard of care.
3. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal v. Union of India (1950s, Indian case law reference)
Established principles of negligence under Indian tort law aligned with English common law principles.
4. Bolton v. Stone (1951) AC 850 (UK)
Facts: A cricket ball hit out of the ground injured a passerby.
Held: No negligence because the likelihood of harm was very small and reasonable precautions were taken.
Significance: Importance of foreseeability and reasonableness in breach.
5. Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman (1990) 2 AC 605 (UK)
Established a three-fold test for duty of care:
Foreseeability of damage,
Proximity between parties,
Fair, just, and reasonable to impose duty.
📝 Summary Table
| Element | Description | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Duty of Care | Legal obligation to avoid harm | Donoghue v. Stevenson |
| Breach of Duty | Failure to meet reasonable standard of care | Bolton v. Stone |
| Causation | Direct link between breach and damage | M.C. Mehta v. Union of India |
| Damage | Actual harm suffered | All negligence cases |
| Defenses | Consent, contributory negligence, inevitable accident | - |
✅ Conclusion
Negligence is a fundamental tort that protects individuals from careless acts or omissions causing harm. The core of negligence lies in the duty of care and breach of that duty causing foreseeable harm.
The principles established in Donoghue v. Stevenson and refined through subsequent cases remain central to negligence law worldwide, including India.
RELATED Blog
0 comments