Negligence in Tort

The Latin word negligentia, which means "failing to pick up," is where the word negligence originates in the law of torts. In legalese, negligence denotes the failure to exercise a standard of care that a reasonable person would have in that specific scenario. In the broad sense, negligence refers to an act of carelessness.

CLAT 2025: 10 Free Mock Tests | Legal Maxims | Landmark Judgements | PYQs

CUET BA LLB 2025:  Legal Studies ebook | 5 Free Mock Tests

MH CET LAW 2025: 10 Free Mock Tests | Legal Reasoning Practice Questions

Monthly Legal Current Affairs:  August’24 | July’24 | June’24

This Story also Contains

1. Meaning of Negligence
2. Definition of Negligence as a Tort
3. Negligence as a Tort
4. Essentials of Negligence
5. Defences of Negligence in Tort
6. Conclusion

The main elements to take into account when determining whether someone's actions fall short of reasonable care are the extent to which harm could come from their acts, the chance that harm will occur, and the expense of taking preventative measures to lessen or eliminate the risk of harm. Someone may be able to sue for damages if they are injured due to someone else's negligence. A loss of this kind could be monetary, in the form of property destruction, mental illness, or physical harm.

Meaning of Negligence

Simple negligence is referred to as "negligence". From a legal perspective, it indicates that the individual did not exercise the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the same circumstances. Legally speaking, when it is reasonably foreseeable that acting otherwise would probably cause injury, one is usually obliged to take prudence. Negligence is a mode in which failing to take such appropriate safeguards may result in numerous types of injuries.

In the case of Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works Co.

In this case, According to one definition, negligence is the act of doing something that a sensible or reasonable man would not do, or failing to do something that a reasonable man would do.

Definition of Negligence as a Tort

• According to Winfield and Jolowicz, "negligence is the breach of a legal duty to take care that results in damage to the plaintiff that the defendant did not intend."
• Lord Wright clarifies: "Negligence means more than headless or careless conduct, whether in commission or omission; it properly connotes the complex concept of duty, breach, and damage thereby suffered by the person to whom the duty was owed."
• According to Charlesworth and Percy, there are three definitions of carelessness in modern forensic discourse. These are: (i) a state of mind that is contrary to purpose; (ii) careless behaviour; and (iii) a breach of a duty to exercise care imposed by common or statutory law. All three interpretations are valid in various situations, but one does not always preclude the others.

Negligence as a Tort

In civil actions and sometimes in criminal matters, the defendant is bound to liability by the term "negligence". In Criminal law, liability is established by the degree and amount of negligence, whereas carelessness generally determines the level of liability depending on the amount of damages incurred.

Legal wrongs committed by one party against another are known as torts. Because some losses or damages between parties happen in the absence of a contract, one party cannot lawfully sue the other for negligence, a type of tort.

Essentials of Negligence

To commit the tort of carelessness, six prerequisites must be fulfilled. A behaviour will only be considered negligent if all of the following criteria are met:

Duty of Care

It is one of the prerequisites for negligence for someone to be held accountable.

It implies that everyone has a responsibility to use caution around other people when acting. Although this obligation is present in all actions, it is not permissible for it to be immoral, unethical, or religious. Instead, it must be legal.

In the case of, Donoghue v. Stevenson

In this case, Lord Atkin said that It's amazing how hard it is to locate broad-application declarations describing the relationships between the parties that give rise to the responsibility of English authorities. It is necessary to state if a duty exists in those specific circumstances, as the courts are concerned with the actual relations that are brought before them in actual litigation.

Duty Towards the Plaintiff

An obligation arises when the law recognizes a connection between the defendant and the plaintiff and requires the defendant to treat the plaintiff in a specific manner. The court will usually determine whether or not the defendant's allegation of owing the plaintiff a duty of care is substantiated.

In the case of, Bourhill v. Young

In this case, The plaintiff, a fishwife, was assisted in putting her basket on her back by a motorcyclist who had passed the tram when they collided with another vehicle at a distance of fifteen yards, which was on the opposite side of the tram. The motorbike rider's instantaneous death was hidden from the plaintiff's view due to the tram's placement between her and the accident scene. After the body was removed from the scene, she went to investigate the sound of the collision and saw some blood that had spilt over the pavement. Following this incident, she experienced a psychological breakdown and gave birth to an 8-month-old stillborn child. As a result, she filed a lawsuit against the motorcyclist's agents. It was decided that the deceased owed the plaintiff no duty of care, hence she was not entitled to any compensation from the deceased's agents.

Breach of Duty

A breach of duty occurs when due care is not used as necessary in a certain circumstance. The normal level of caution or that of a reasonable man is the benchmark. There is no negligence if the defendant has behaved as a man of reasonable caution would.

In the case of, Bylth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co.

In this case, Alderson B. Stated that "Being negligent is the act of doing something that a prudent and reasonable person would not do, or failing to do something that a reasonable man would do, guided by those considerations which normally regulate the conduct of human affairs." The law demands the kind of caution that a wise man would follow.

In the case of Ramesh Kumar Nayak v. Union of India, It was held that the postal authorities were liable because they had a duty to maintain the post office premises and because the collapse occurred as a result of their breach of that duty, they were liable to pay compensation. The defendant was injured on a post office compound wall that postal authorities neglected to keep in good repair.

Actual Cause

In this instance, the plaintiff who is suing the defendant for negligence must show that the defendant's negligence caused the plaintiff's damages. This is commonly referred to as "but-for" causation, meaning that the plaintiff would not have suffered the damages if the defendant had not acted as they did.

Harm to the Plaintiff

It is insufficient to prove that the defendant did not use reasonable care. It must also be shown that the defendant's failure to exercise reasonable care caused losses to the plaintiff, to whom the defendant owed a duty of care.

Proximate Cause

"Legal cause," or the reason that the law acknowledges as the main reason for the injury, is what is meant by "proximate cause." It might not be the final occurrence before the injury happens, nor it might not be the first to start a chain of events that resulted in an injury. Rather, it is an activity that, on its own, achieves predictable results without the help of others. In a negligence case, the defendant's liability is limited to the damages that his acts could have reasonably been expected to cause.

Defences of Negligence in Tort

Negligence of the Tort

Under the Law of Torts, the defendants may assert the defence of contributory negligence in cases when both the plaintiff's and the defendant's fault resulted in a tort or unlawful action. According to common law, a person who caused the injury they are complaining about via their negligence is not entitled to pursue legal action against the other party. Since he will be regarded as the creator of his error in legal terms.

Under the following circumstances, the defendants cannot be held liable-

• The plaintiff may have prevented the defendant's negligence's consequences by using ordinary caution.

• By using ordinary care, the defendant could not have prevented the plaintiff's negligence's consequences.

• Both the plaintiff and the defendant have shown an equal lack of reasonable care, and the former cannot sue the latter for the same.

In the case of, Butterfield v. Forrester

In this case, The defendant had no right to erect a pole across a Durby public highway. The plaintiff was riding in that direction at eight o'clock in the evening in August when dusk was approaching, but he could still see the barrier from a hundred yards away. Riding aggressively, he collided with the pole and fell with the horse. It was decided that because the plaintiff was also negligent, he could not sue for damages.

Act of God or Vis Major

An "act of god" is a natural disaster, such as a volcano, strong winds, earthquakes, or a torrential downpour. To be eligible for this defence, two things must happen:

• Natural forces must be in action.

• The event needs to be exceptional rather than something that was expected.

It is a direct, forceful, abrupt, and irresistible act of nature that could not have been predicted by human intelligence or, if it had, could not have been stopped with any amount of effort or skill on the part of humans. For example, a storm, an unusually heavy rainfall, an exceptionally high tide, an earthquake, etc.

In this case, Nichols v. Marsland

In this case, The defendant owned many man-made lakes on his property, none of which had been negligently built or maintained. Four rural bridges were washed away as several of the reservoirs burst due to an unusually severe downpour. It was decided that since the water escaped due to a divine act, the defendant was not responsible.

Inevitable Accident

Even when the defendant used reasonable care, an inevitable accident occurs when the plaintiff sustains an unexpected injury as a result of an unforeseen and unavoidable event. The defendant must demonstrate that he had no intention of hurting the plaintiff and that he lacked the means to prevent the harm by exercising reasonable caution. An accident is inevitable if it is something that cannot be avoided with common sense, prudence, and expertise. It denotes a physically inevitable accident.

In the case of, Stanley v. Powell

In this case, Following a pheasant shoot in which the plaintiff and the defendant were participants, it was decided that the defendant was not liable for the accident because it was an inevitable accident and that the plaintiff was hurt when the defendant's bullet struck a pheasant and glanced off an oak tree.

Conclusion

This article talks about the Negligence in Tort. Negligence means when a person's careless actions lead to damage or injury to any other person. Negligence may occur due to carelessness or non-performance of obligations and duties of either party. In case of negligence, the party who has faced damage can make the other party liable for their negligence or carelessness. As given in the article to prove an act to be negligence essentials like duty of care, duty towards the plaintiff, breach of duty, actual cause, harm to the plaintiff and proximate cause should be proved.