https://blog.ipleaders.
in/negligence-in-the-law-
of-torts/
use above link to discuss negligence in elucidate manner.
Negligence is a civil tort which occurs when
a person breaches his duty of care which he
owed to another due to which that other
person suffers some hard or undergoes some
legal injury.
In tort law negligence can be:
A mode of committing other torts like
trespass or nuisance
A separate tort in itself
Essentials of Negligence
Duty of Care: The plaintiff needs to prove
that the defendant owed him a duty of
care. The nature of duty for it is purely
legal and not moral or religious. ‘Duty‘ can
be seen as an obligation to be careful
towards others.
case of Bourhill v. Young (1943) the plaintiff who was a
fishwife got down from a tram car ,a motor-cyclist after
passing the tram collided with a motor car and died
instantly and the plaintiff could not witness the place
where the accident occurred. She had only heard the
sound of the after some time when saw some blood
which was left on the road. As a reaction, she suffered a
nervous shock and gave birth to a still-born child of 8
months because of which she sued the representatives of
the deceased motorcyclist. It was held that the deceased
had no duty of care towards the litigant and therefore
she could not claim any damages from the deceased’s
representatives. AS in The case of Donoghue v.
Stevenson (1932) has evolved the principle that we each
have a duty of care to our neighbor or someone we could
reasonably expect to be affected by our acts or
omissions. despite no contract existed between the
manufacturer and the person suffering the damage. The
manufacturer held liable.
Breach of Duty the second step is to
establish that there was a breach of duty.
The defendant is supposed to carry out his
duty like a reasonable man. The deciding
test is to see whether the defendant has
taken reasonable care or not.
In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi
v. Subhagvanti (AIR 1966)
A very old clock tower situated right in the
middle of a crowded area of Chandni Chowk
suddenly collapsed thereby causing the
death of many people. The clock tower was
80 years old although the normal life span
of the clock tower should have been 40-45
years. The clock tower was under the
control of The Municipal Corporation of Delhi
and they had a duty of care towards the
citizens. By ignoring to repair the clock
tower, they had breached their duty of care
toward the public and were thereby liable
Damage: As a result of the breach of duty
by the defendant, the plaintiff must suffer
some damage.
A defendant in a negligence case is only
responsible for those damages that the
defendant could have foreseen through his
actions
Donoghue v Stevenson [case law]
the plaintiff have a ginger beer in cafe, the bottle
of which was sealed with an opaque cork. On
emptying the contents of the bottle, a decomposed
body of a snail came out, The plaintiff was taken ill
due to the part consumption of the contaminated
contents of the bottle.
the court held that It was the duty of the manufacturer
to take care that the opaque bottle did not contain
noxious matter. Hence manufacturer was liable.
{Conclude your point from introduction and close loop}
Contributory Negligence
This is a defence open to the defendant, in an action for negligence. This is based on the
principle that no doubt, the defendant is, in fact negligent but the plaintiff also has contributed
his negligence, and hence the plaintiff should not be allowed to take advantage of his own tort
of negligence. Img for example of case law
in the case of Shelton Vs L & W Railway(1946), while the plaintiff was crossing a
railway line, a servant of the railway company who was in charge of crossing
shouted a warning to him. Due to the plaintiff being deaf, he was unable to hear
the warning and was consequently injured. The court held that this amounted to
contributory negligence by him
Res Ipsa Loquitor
Generally, in cases of negligence, the onus of proof
lies on the plaintiff. It is the plaintiff’s job to prove
that the defendant had not only been negligent but
it also caused damage to the plaintiff.
In some cases, there is no need for it, the
occurrence of such negligence suffices. It is in
these circumstances that the principle of ‘Res
Ipsa Loquitor‘ is invoked, the meaning of which is
‘ things speak for themselves’.
In cases where the circumstances themselves point
towards the defendants for his negligence, the
court presumes that the defendant was negligent
and the damage was caused to the plaintiff due to
his wrongful actions.
Eg: A doctor leaves his watch inside the stomach
of the patient after he performs surgery. If such a
case comes to the court, the circumstances speak
for themselves and the defendant is presumed
guilty.
