Negligence: Introduction and Essentials | Law of Torts - CLAT PG PDF Download

Negligence

Introduction

• In everyday language, negligence simply means being careless. However, in a legal context, it refers to the failure to exercise the level of care that a reasonable person would, according to the law, in a given situation.
• Generally, there is a legal obligation to take care when it is or should be reasonably expected that not doing so could likely result in harm. Negligence, therefore, represents a way in which various types of harm can occur due to insufficient precautions that should have been taken to prevent such harm, as opposed to causing harm intentionally or deliberately. It is possible for someone to cause harm negligently even if they were not careless but attempted to be careful, if the level of care exercised is deemed inadequate by the court in the specific circumstances.
• Typically, an individual is accountable for the direct outcomes of their negligent actions when they are in a position relative to another person where it is evident that failing to exercise due care in their own behavior will lead to injury to the other party.

Forms of Negligence:

Negligence can take many forms, but some of the most common include:

• Negligence causing personal injuries or death: This includes situations where an employer is liable for injuries to an employee, or where an occupier of land is responsible for injuries to visitors.
• Liability of suppliers to consumers: Suppliers may be held liable for harm caused to consumers due to negligence.
• Liability of persons doing work to their clients: Individuals or businesses performing work for clients may be liable for negligence if their actions cause harm.
• Liability of persons handling vehicles to other road-users: Drivers and other vehicle operators can be held liable for negligence if their actions endanger other road users.

The categories of negligence are not fixed, and new types, such as negligence causing economic loss, may emerge and be recognized.

Two Meanings of Negligence in Law of Torts:

• Negligence as State of Mind: In this view, negligence is seen as a way of committing certain torts, such as trespass, nuisance, or defamation, carelessly or negligently. This perspective is supported by legal scholars like Austin, Salmond, and Winfield.
• Negligence as Type of Conduct: Here, negligence is viewed as a type of conduct that involves the risk of causing damage, rather than a state of mind. This objective interpretation treats negligence as a specific tort.

Actionable Negligence and Its Essentials

Actionable negligence involves the failure to exercise ordinary care or skill towards someone to whom the defendant owes this duty, resulting in injury to the plaintiff's person or property (as seen in Heaven v. Pender).

Essentials of Negligence

When pursuing a case of negligence, the plaintiff must establish the following key elements:

1. Duty of Care: The defendant had a legal obligation to exercise care towards the plaintiff.
2. Breach of Duty: The defendant failed to uphold this duty by not exercising due care and skill.
3. Damages: The plaintiff suffered harm as a direct result of the defendant's actions.

Duty of Care to the Plaintiff

• Before someone can be held liable for negligence, there must be a clear duty to take care. This duty is legal, not just moral, religious, or social. The plaintiff needs to show that the defendant had a specific legal obligation to take care of them and that this duty was breached. Usually, whether a duty exists is based on previous legal cases, but new situations can also create duties.
• In the famous case of Donoghue v. Stevenson, the plaintiff became ill after drinking ginger beer from a bottle that contained a dead snail, which she discovered only after consuming some of the drink. The court held that the manufacturer was negligent and owed a duty of care to the consumer. Lord Atkin stated that a manufacturer must take reasonable care in producing goods intended for consumers, as any lack of care could harm the consumer's health or property.

Key Concepts of Duty of Care

• The concept of duty of care is a fundamental principle in tort law, particularly in negligence cases. It establishes the legal obligation to take reasonable care to prevent harm to others.
• Duty of care can be understood through various case laws and legal precedents that highlight its application in different scenarios.
• In the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson, the court emphasized the manufacturer's responsibility to ensure the safety of products intended for consumers. This case set a precedent for establishing duty of care in product liability cases.
• Other cases, such as Heaven v. Pender, Rural Transport Service v. Bezlum Bibi, and Sushma Mitra v. M.P. State Road Transport Corpn, further illustrate the nuances of duty of care and how it is determined based on the foreseeability of harm and the relationship between parties.
• The standard of care expected from individuals in various situations is often assessed based on the actions of a 'reasonable man' – a person of ordinary prudence and intelligence.
• Overall, duty of care plays a crucial role in determining liability and accountability in cases of negligence or wrongful acts, ensuring that individuals take appropriate measures to prevent harm to others.

Case Law Illustrations

• Donoghue v. Stevenson: This landmark case established the principle of duty of care in product liability. The court ruled that manufacturers owe a duty to ensure the safety of their products for consumers.
• Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd v. Heller & Partners Ltd: This case recognized the duty of care in providing information. It highlighted that a party seeking information from another with special skills can rely on their expertise, and a negligent misrepresentation may lead to damages.
• Heaven v. Pender: In this case, the court ruled that duty arises when a person is closer to another's person or property. The concept of foreseeability is crucial in determining duty of care.
• Rural Transport Service v. Bezlum Bibi: The case involved negligence on the part of a bus conductor who allowed passengers to travel on the roof of an overloaded bus. When a passenger fell and died due to an overhanging branch, both the driver and conductor were held negligent.
• Sushma Mitra v. M.P. State Road Transport Corpn: This case emphasized the driver's duty to maintain a reasonable distance from other vehicles on the road. When a truck hit the plaintiff's elbow while she was resting it on the window sill, the driver was found negligent.
• Glasgow Corpn. v. Muir: In this case, the defendant's tearoom managers allowed a picnic party to eat in the tearoom. When an accident occurred, the court evaluated the foreseeability of harm in determining liability.

Foreseeability and Negligence

1. Glasgow Corpn. v. Muir

• Case Overview: The case involved a picnic party carrying a large urn of tea to a tearoom through a passage where children were buying ice creams.
• Incident: One of the individuals lost grip of the urn, leading to injuries for six children, including the plaintiff.
• Court Ruling: The court ruled that the tearoom managers could not have anticipated such an event, thus they had no duty to take precautions. Consequently, neither the managers nor the corporation could be held liable.

2. Fardon v. Harcourt

• Incident: The defendant parked his car by the roadside, leaving a dog inside. The dog jumped out, smashing a glass panel.
• Injury: A splinter from the glass injured the plaintiff as he walked past the car.
• Court Ruling: The court determined that the accident was highly unlikely, and therefore, the defendant was not liable.

3. Balton v. Stone

• Incident: A person on the road was injured by a cricket ball hit by a player from a cricket ground adjacent to the highway.
• History: The ground had been in use for 90 years, with the ball hitting the highway about six times in the last 30 years without causing injury.
• Court Ruling: The court found that the defendant (the cricket club committee and members) were not negligent.

Duty of Care in Negligence

1. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.

• Incident: A passenger carrying a package attempted to board a moving train. A railway guard, intending to help, pushed him from behind, causing the package (containing fireworks) to fall and explode, injuring the plaintiff.
• Court Ruling: The court held that the guard was not negligent towards the plaintiff, as his duty of care was towards the holder of the package, not the plaintiff standing 25 feet away.

2. Counsel's Duty to Client

• A counsel has a professional duty towards their client to perform legal duties with care.
• If a counsel's actions or omissions adversely affect the client's interests in legal proceedings, they do so at their own risk.

Duty of Care in Medical Profession

In the medical profession, duty of care refers to the obligation of healthcare professionals to provide a certain standard of care to their patients. The standard of care expected from a surgeon or anesthetist, for example, is based on the average level of skill and knowledge possessed by practitioners in that particular field. Specialists are held to a higher standard due to their advanced training and expertise.

Breach of Duty

• After establishing that the defendant owed a duty of care, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant breached this duty by failing to exercise the required level of care.
• Breach of duty involves not taking the necessary precautions or care expected in a specific situation.
• To determine the standard of care required, two key points are considered:
• (a) Importance of the Objective: The law does not demand the utmost care but rather the care of a reasonable and prudent person under the given circumstances. The level of care, skill, or diligence required can vary based on the specific case.
• The prudent person is typically someone who possesses the special skill necessary for the task at hand. A person lacking this specialized skill, regardless of their carefulness or proficiency in other areas, may be considered imprudent in undertaking the task.
• The law allows for some degree of risk-taking to ensure that various activities essential for public interest continue to operate.

Legal Duty of Counsel to Client

• A counsel has a professional obligation to perform legal duties with care towards their client.
• If a counsel's actions or omissions negatively impact the client's interests in legal proceedings, they bear the risk of such consequences.

Understanding Negligence through Legal Examples

(a) Balancing Purpose and Risk in Negligence

• Dabron v. Bath Tramways: This case illustrates that while reducing train speeds to five miles an hour could decrease accidents, it would also significantly slow down national life. The key takeaway is that when the purpose of an action is deemed sufficiently important, the assumption of abnormal risk is justified.
• There is a need to strike a balance between the significance and utility of an action and the associated risks. For instance, a certain speed may be acceptable for a fire brigade vehicle but could be considered negligent for a regular vehicle.
• Latimer v. A.E.C. Ltd: In this case, heavy rain caused a factory to flood, mixing water with oily substances and creating slippery floors. Despite the factory owners spreading all available sawdust, some oily patches remained. When a plaintiff slipped and got injured, the court held that the defendants acted reasonably and were not liable.

(b) The Magnitude of Risk in Determining Care

• The level of care required to avoid negligence varies with the obviousness of the risk involved. When the potential for harm to a person or property is significant, greater care is necessary. Conversely, if the danger is minimal, only a small amount of care is needed.
• For example, a driver must exercise more caution in a school zone or when encountering vulnerable individuals like children or the elderly. There is no fixed standard, but generally, the degree of care correlates directly with the level of risk.
• Kerala State Electricity Board v. Suresh Kumar: In this case, a young boy was electrocuted after coming into contact with an overhead electric wire that had sagged to 3 feet above the ground. The Electricity Board was responsible for maintaining the wire at least 15 feet above the ground and was found liable for failing to meet this statutory duty.
• Glasgow Corp. v. Taylor: This case involved a lack of due care in a specific situation. Poisonous berries, resembling cherries, were growing in a public garden managed by the corporation. These berries, being visually appealing, posed a danger to children. When a seven-year-old child ate the berries, it highlighted the corporation's negligence in ensuring safety in the garden.