Theories of Negligence
Negligence – Introduction
Negligence is a tort which arises when a person fails to exercise reasonable care, causing harm to another. It is unintentional, unlike trespass or assault.
A person is negligent if they breach a duty of care owed to another, and this breach causes damage.
Theories of Negligence
There are several theories developed over time to explain how and why negligence is determined in law. The main ones are:
1. The Fault or Liability Theory
Concept:
A person is liable for negligence if they fail to act as a reasonable person would under the same circumstances.
This theory focuses on fault or blameworthiness.
Key Features:
Requires duty of care, breach of duty, and causation of damage.
Liability arises from carelessness or omission.
Case Law:
Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks (1856) 11 Ex Ch 781
Facts: Waterworks failed to maintain pipes; frost caused flooding.
Held: Negligence is failing to do what a reasonable person would do, or doing what a reasonable person would not do.
Principle: Liability arises from failure to exercise reasonable care.
2. The No-Fault or Strict Liability Theory
Concept:
A person may be held liable without fault for certain activities.
Focuses on risk created by the defendant, not on their intent or carelessness.
Key Features:
Applies in cases of hazardous or non-natural use of land, dangerous activities, or ultrahazardous acts.
The defendant may be liable even if they were careful.
Case Law:
Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330
Facts: Fletcher’s mine damaged by water from Rylands’ reservoir.
Held: Rylands was strictly liable because he brought something likely to cause mischief onto his land.
Principle: Liability can arise regardless of negligence.
3. The Fault-Preventive or Deterrent Theory
Concept:
Negligence rules exist to prevent harm by encouraging people to take care.
Law provides a deterrent effect through liability.
Key Features:
Emphasizes social utility of precautions.
Focuses on preventing accidents before they happen, not just punishing them.
Case Law:
Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) AC 562
Facts: Mrs. Donoghue became ill after drinking ginger beer containing a snail.
Held: Manufacturer owed a duty of care to the consumer.
Principle: Law imposes responsibility to prevent foreseeable harm, deterring careless conduct.
4. The Economic Loss Theory
Concept:
Focuses on compensation for financial loss due to negligence, even if no physical injury occurs.
Key Features:
Emphasizes efficient allocation of risk in economic terms.
Often used in professional negligence cases.
Case Law:
Hedley Byrne & Co v. Heller (1964) AC 465
Facts: Negligent misstatement caused financial loss.
Held: Defendant liable for pure economic loss if there is a special relationship.
Principle: Negligence extends to financial harm if duty of care exists.
5. The Risk Theory (Foreseeability Theory)
Concept:
A person is negligent if they fail to prevent a foreseeable risk of harm to others.
Key Features:
Focuses on probability of harm rather than intent.
Encourages reasonable precautions against foreseeable danger.
Case Law:
Paris v. Stepney Borough Council (1951) AC 367
Facts: Worker with one eye injured at work; employer failed to provide goggles.
Held: Employer negligent because risk of injury was foreseeable, and precautions were reasonable.
Principle: Liability depends on foreseeable risk and reasonable precautions.
Summary Table of Theories of Negligence
| Theory | Focus | Key Case | Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fault or Liability Theory | Carelessness / breach | Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks | Negligence = failure to act as reasonable person |
| No-Fault / Strict Liability | Risk created | Rylands v. Fletcher | Liability may arise without fault |
| Fault-Preventive / Deterrent | Prevention / social utility | Donoghue v. Stevenson | Duty to prevent foreseeable harm |
| Economic Loss Theory | Financial harm | Hedley Byrne v. Heller | Liability for negligent misstatement causing economic loss |
| Risk / Foreseeability Theory | Probable harm | Paris v. Stepney BC | Negligent if harm was foreseeable and precautions reasonable |
Key Takeaways:
Negligence is not only about carelessness; it can arise from strict liability or failure to prevent foreseeable harm.
Theories help courts decide when liability arises, the extent of duty, and the scope of remedies.
Foreseeability, duty of care, and reasonableness are central concepts in most theories.
RELATED Blog
0 comments