DEPARTMENT OF LAWS

PANJAB UNIVERSITY

CHANDIGARH

SUBJECT: LAW OF TORTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

TOPIC: THEORIES OF NEGLIGENCE

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

PRITHVIJEET SINGH THAKUR Dr. GAURI BAJAJ

ROLL No: 168/24

 INDEX

1. ACKNOWLEGEMENT
2. INTRODUCTION
3. DEFINITIONS
4. KEY ELEMENTS OF NEGLIGENCE
5. THEORIES OF NEGLIGENCE
6. NOTABLE NEGLIGENCE CASES
7. CONCLUSION
8. SOURCES
 Acknowledgment

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Gauri Bajaj for her invaluable guidance and
support in completing this assignment on the theories of negligence. Her insightful lectures
and in-depth understanding of tort law provided a strong foundation for exploring this
complex topic. I am deeply grateful for her encouragement, feedback, and the resources she
shared, which greatly enhanced my understanding and research on negligence in law. This
assignment would not have been possible without her expertise and dedication to her
students’ academic growth. Thank you, Dr. Bajaj, for your mentorship and inspiration.
INTRODUCTION

Negligence is defined as a civil tort that occurs when a person breaches his duty of care
which he owed towards his neighbour (neighbour here means anyone who can get affected
by his action) and due to which the other person suffers some legal injury. In simple
language, negligence is a person’s carelessness which ultimately results in the injury or some
harm to another. It is important to note that the injury must be a legal injury. It means
careless or unreasonable conduct. But merely unreasonable conduct without damage is not
actionable though it may be a punishable offence. Such conduct when followed can cause
harm to another gives rise to liability for negligence. It may be pointed out that negligence
may mean a mental element in tortuous liability or it may mean an independent tort.

Negligence is defined as a duty violation brought on by the failure to take action that a
reasonable person would have taken in the same situation. When a defendant fails to apply
reasonable care or skill towards an individual to whom they owe it, it is considered
actionable negligence.
DEFINITIONS

Some of the Important definitions of Negligence are as follows:

 Prof Winfield: According to Professor Winfield Negligence is the breach of a legal

duty to take care, which results in damage, undesired by the defendant to the
plaintiff.

 Baron Alderson: Negligence is the omission to do something, which a reasonable

man guided upon those considerations, which ordinarily regulate human affairs,
would do or doing something, which a prudent or reasonable man would not do.

Key Elements of Negligence

In order to establish a successful negligence claim, four core elements must be proven:

1. Duty of Care:

• The concept of “duty of care” is fundamental to negligence. It means that a

person is legally required to act with a reasonable level of care to avoid causing harm to
others. Courts generally decide whether a duty exists based on the relationship between the
parties and the circumstances of the case. Some relationships automatically create a duty of
care, like the relationship between a doctor and patient or a driver and pedestrians.

• For example, a store owner owes a duty of care to customers, making sure
the store environment is safe and free from hazards.

2. Breach of Duty:

• Once a duty of care is established, the next question is whether the

defendant breached, or failed to meet, that duty. A breach of duty occurs when someone
does not act in the way a reasonable person would under similar circumstances. This is often
called a “failure to act with reasonable care.” Courts assess whether the defendant’s actions
were careless or fell below an acceptable standard.
 • For example, if a restaurant worker mops the floor but doesn’t put up a “Wet
Floor” sign, a reasonable person could expect someone might slip. Failing to warn about the
wet floor could be considered a breach of duty.

3. Causation:

• Causation connects the breach of duty directly to the plaintiff’s harm. In

negligence cases, causation is usually divided into two parts: actual cause and proximate
cause.

• Actual Cause (or “cause in fact”): This requires showing that the defendant’s
actions were the direct cause of the injury. This is often demonstrated by the “but for” test,
which asks, “but for the defendant’s actions, would the harm have occurred?”

• Proximate Cause: This limits liability to harm that was a foreseeable result of
the defendant’s actions. In other words, it must be a type of harm that a reasonable person
would anticipate from such behaviour.

• For example, if a driver runs a red light and hits a pedestrian, the driver’s
breach (running the red light) was both the actual and proximate cause of the pedestrian’s
injury.

4. Damages:

• The plaintiff must have suffered real harm or loss as a result of the
defendant’s breach of duty. These damages can be physical (like injuries), financial (such as
medical bills or lost income), or even emotional (pain and suffering). If no harm occurred,
there is no basis for a negligence claim, even if the defendant was careless.

• For instance, if someone slips on a wet floor but doesn’t suffer any injury or
loss, they wouldn’t have a negligence claim because there’s no damage to compensate for.
Theories of negligence

Subjective Theory of Negligence

The subjective theory of negligence is given by Salmond and according to him, negligence is
culpable carelessness. Although negligence is not the same as thoughtlessness or
inadvertence, it is nevertheless essentially an attitude of indifference. Negligence essentially
2consists in the mental attitude of undue indifference in aspects of one's conduct is essential
for negligence. An individual may be liable for negligence if he simply doesn't want to avoid
a particular incident. Also, this view of Salmond was strongly supported by professor
Winfield and he further added that negligence is merely a state of mind, inadvertence to
some duty.

Objective Theory of Negligence

The objective theory of negligence is given by Federick Pollock and according to him
negligence is an objective fact and it is not based on the state of mind or mens rea as
described by Salmond. But he insisted that negligence is a particular kind of conduct.

It is the breach of duty to care and by saying to care means to take all possible precaution
against those actions which can result in injury or any harm to other.

Balancing the two different views

Sometimes negligence can be used in both the sense subjective and objective, therefore it
depends on which context its meaning is being conveyed. When a mental element or mens
rea is involved it is used as subjective theory and when the wrongdoer fails to take the
proper duty of care it is used as objective theory. For example, in subjective theory, if a
mother neglects to provide food to her infant daughter and the child dies then in that case
mental element may be considered instead of mere negligence. In such cases, it is difficult to
determine the difference between wrongful intention and negligence without analyzing the
mind of the wrongdoer. So, in such cases, the mental element plays an important role.
Whereas in objective theory when there is no question of wrongful intention, it is decided
on the basis of a reasonable man.

Therefore, he is liable only when he has not taken care as much as a reasonable man would
have taken. In such cases mens rea of the wrongdoer is irrelevant and the entire case is
judged objectively.

Notable Negligence Cases

1. Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932):

•This famous UK case laid the groundwork for modern negligence law. In this case,
Mrs. Donoghue drank a bottle of ginger beer that contained a decomposed snail, which
caused her to become ill. She sued the manufacturer, arguing that they owed her a duty of
care even though she didn’t buy the drink directly. The court agreed, establishing the
“neighbour principle,” which requires people to take reasonable care to avoid harming
others who could be directly affected by their actions.

2. Bolton v. Stone (1951):

•In this case, a woman was hit by a cricket ball from a nearby club. The club had
taken steps to prevent balls from escaping the field, and accidents were rare. The court ruled
that the risk was so low that the cricket club wasn’t negligent. This case illustrates the
importance of foreseeability and reasonable care in determining negligence. If a risk is highly
unlikely, the defendant may not be held responsible for failing to prevent it.

3. The Wagon Mound (1961):

•This case involved an oil spill that caused a fire, leading to extensive damage. The
court held that the defendant wasn’t liable for the fire damage because it wasn’t a
foreseeable consequence of the oil spill. This case emphasizes the role of proximate cause in
negligence, limiting liability to foreseeable harm rather than unexpected consequences.
Conclusion

Negligence plays a crucial role in tort law, providing a way for injured parties to seek
compensation for harm caused by someone else’s carelessness. To establish negligence, a
plaintiff must show that the defendant owed them a duty of care, breached that duty,
caused harm directly, and led to real damages. Theories like the reasonable person standard,
foreseeability test, and cost-benefit analysis help courts decide whether someone’s actions
were negligent and whether they should be held responsible. Understanding these
principles is essential for navigating personal injury cases and understanding how the law
promotes accountability and safety in society.

Sources

1. Law of Torts – Rk Bangia

2. The law of Torts – Ratanlal & Dhirajlal
3. Law of torts – AK jain