A Critical Study of Negligence
-
Upload
ashwin-jambhulkar -
Category
Documents
-
view
232 -
download
0
Transcript of A Critical Study of Negligence
-
8/2/2019 A Critical Study of Negligence
1/15
A critical study of negligencewith reference to legal profession
Subject: law of torts
Submitted to: prof
Submitted by: poornima solanki
Reg.no:
Nalsar university of law
-
8/2/2019 A Critical Study of Negligence
2/15
Contents
Page no
1. Table of cases
2. List of abbreviations
3. Negligence
3.1History
3.2Introduction
3.3Definition
4. Essentials of negligence
5. Negligence-proof
6. Professional negligence
7. Negligence - defences
8. Conclusion
9. Bibliography
-
8/2/2019 A Critical Study of Negligence
3/15
3. Negligence
3.1 History
Negligence was rarely recognized and was scarcely treated as a separate tort before
the nineteenth century. Law of torts treats negligence in a completely different
manner , according to the English law , law of torts is based on two principles
1. All the injuries done to another person are torts , unless there is some justification
recognized by law
2. There is definite number of torts outside which liability in tort does not exist
The negligence of tort is breach of duty by one person to another , the famous
landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson :
In this case the claimant Donoghue consumed a part of a ginger beer which
contained a decomposed snail ,the snail was not visible because the bottle was
opaque ,and sued the manufacturer Mr. Stevenson.
Prior to this case the word was used for very general sense which described the
breach of any lagal obligation , or to designate a mental element ,usually one of
inadvertence or indifference ,entering into the commission of other torts.
Some writers considered that negligence was merely one way of commiting
other torts , and itself had no particular legal importance . but for more than a
century ,it has received more or less general recognition as an independent basisof liability , with distinct features of its own , differing on the other hand from
intentional torts ,and on the other from those on which strict liability is imposed.
One of the earliest appearances of torts what we know as negligence was in
liability of those who were competent in certain public callings. A carrier , an
innkeeper, innkeeper , an black smith , or a surgeon, was regarded as holding
himself out to the public to the public as one in whom confidence might be reposed,
and hence as assuming an obligation to give proper service , breach of which by any
negligent conduct he might be liable.
In the field of trespass and nuisance,the notion also developed ,thinly disguised
,that there might be liability for the negligence; and in later years the action on the
case produced a large ,undigested group of situations in which negligence aws the
essence of tort.
-
8/2/2019 A Critical Study of Negligence
4/15
3.2 Introduction
Introduction
Consider following examples first:
A cyclist knocked down and killed by a speeding car
A junior doctor mistakenly gives wrong antibiotic to the patient
A child falls down in the manhole which was left uncovered by the municipal
Corporation.
In each of the above example the injury caused appears to be a fault someone other than the
injured party, the speeding car, doctor, and municipal corporation all of them have been
negligent in some in some way and considered as they have acted carelessly or neglectfully.
Now all of these people are liable for the damages in the tort of negligence defined by Percy
H Winfield as breach of legal duty to take care by an inadvertent act or omission that injures
another.
It is important to distinguish between negligence in the former every day or colloquial sense
and it is synonymous with carelessness and neglect. And negligence in the legal sense- that is
the type of liability which the law imposes to the people who fall below the standard of care
imposed by law. Not all actions which are negligent in the first case will be negligent in thesecond case it is only sometimes when law wants us to act carefully and it is important
always to bear in mind that a person is not automatically liable for all of the consequences of
their negligent actions.
Negligence in tort law refers to the self- contained tort which, since the landmark case of
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) , provides a remedy where the injury caused to the injured
party by the wrongdoers failure to keep to the legal duty to take reasonable care.
The tort of negligence plays a central role in the law of tort. This is for two reasons:
(1) It is by far the most important tort in practice. More tort law claims are brought
in the tort of negligence than in any other tort.
(2) Its infl uence extends beyond the tort itself; the ideas and principles of negligence
have infl uenced the interpretation of other torts, for example, in relation
to understandings of intentionally caused harm (FowlervLanning [1959]), the
infusion of the notion of foreseeability into private nuisance and the previously
strict liability imposed by the rule inRylands vFletcher [1868] by the House of
Lords in Cambridge Water Co LtdvEastern Counties Leather plc [1994] and
in defamation where the privilege defences have been redefi ned in terms of the
defendants fault (Reynolds v Times Newspapers [2001]).2
-
8/2/2019 A Critical Study of Negligence
5/15
3.3 Definition
Definition
The jurisprudential concept of negligence defies any precise definition. Eminent jurists and
leading judgements it is said have assigned various meanings to negligence. The apex courtin Jacob Mathew v. state of Punjab observed:
Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by the omission to do something which a
reasonable man , guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of
human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not
do. actionable negligence consists in the neglect of the use of ordinary care or skill toward a
person to whom the defendant owes the duty of observing ordinarycare and skill , by which
neglect the plaintiff has suffered injury to his person or property.
The definition involves three constituents of negligence:
1. A legal duty to exercise due cae on the part of the party complained of towardstheparty complaining the formers conduct within the scope of the duty;
2. Breach of the said duty; and3. Consequential damage.
According to charlesworth and percy ,negligence ,in current fotrensic speech, negligence has
three meanings. These are:
1. A state of mind , in which it is opppised to intention;
2. Careless conduct; and
3. The breach of duty to take care that is imposed by either common or statute law .
All three meanings are applicable in different circumstances but anyone of them does not
necessarily exclude the other meanings.
-
8/2/2019 A Critical Study of Negligence
6/15
4.Essentials of negligence
Essentials
According to Winfield in an action for negligence the plaintiff has to proof thefollowing essentials:
1. Guide the defendant owed duty of care to the plaintiff;
2. The defendant made the breach of the duty; and
3. The plaintiff suffered damage as the consequence there of.
1. Duty of care to the plaintiff
The requirement for establishing a duty of care are as follows:
(i) Duty means a legal duty rather than a mere moral, religious or social duty. The
plaintiff has to establish that the defendant owed to him a specific legal duty to
take care, of which he has made a breach. There is no general rule of law defining
such duty.
Case : Donoghue v. Stevenson: a purchased a bottle of ginger beer from a retailer
for the appellant , a lady friend . after consuming some part of that beer she saw a
decomposed body of a snail and the bottle being opaque she , her friend andthe
Essentials
Duty of care
Breach of duty
Damages
-
8/2/2019 A Critical Study of Negligence
7/15
shopkeeper nobody could see that and she suffered seriously. And she brought an
action against the manufacturer for damage.
Case 2: Grant v Australian knitting mills limited (1936)
Dr. grant ,the plaintiff got dermatitis as as a result of wearing the underpantswhich had been manufactured by defendents knitting mill, the garment contained
an excess of sulphite he wore them entire one week without washing them
beforehand. The council held that the defendant were liable to appellant .
(ii) Foresee ability of a injury: where a defendant owes a duty to the plaintiff or
not depends on reasonable foreseeability of the injury to the plaintiff .if at the time
of the act if defendant fails to prevent the injury to which he was aware makes him
liable.
Case1:Bourhill v. Young
Mr.young was negligently riding a bike along the road and got collided with a car
which coused him fatal injury and mrs.bourhill while riding a tram heard the crash
around 50ft from the accident place and claimed that she just got in a pack of
nerves, she was eight month pregnant that time gave birth to a still born child and
claimed that she had suffered nervous shock,stress and sustained loss due to
mr.young.
Case3: municipal corporation of delhi v. subhagwantiA clock tower situated in the heart of the city that is in the chandni chowk, it
collapsed and caused death of a nember of persons. The structure was 80 years old
whereas its normal life was 40 to 45 years therefore the defendant held liable to
pay compensation for the consequences of the collapse of the structure.
(iii) No foreseeability ,no liability of the defendant
Case 1: cates v.Mongini bros
The plaintiff , a lady visitor to a restaurant was injured by the falling of a ceiling
fan on her. The reason for the falling of the fan was a latent defect in the metal of
the suspension rod of the fan. The defect could not have baan discovered by a
reasonable man.
(iv) Proximity in relationship , which implies that the parties are so related that it
is just a reasonable that the duty should exist.
Case1: Fardon v. Harcourtrivington, the defendant parked his car by the road
side and left a dog inside the car. The dog jumped about and smashed a glass
panel. A splinter from this glass injured the plaintiff while he was walking past the
-
8/2/2019 A Critical Study of Negligence
8/15
car. It was held that the accident, being very unlikely, there was no negligence in
not taking a precaution against it and, therefore, the defendant was not liable.
(v) duty must be towards plaintiff.
Case1: king v Philips:
The defendants servant was negligently backing a taxi-cab into a boy on a tricycle.
The boys mother, who was in an upstairs window, at a distance of about 70 to 80
yards, could only see the tricycle under the taxi-cab and heard the boy scream but
could not see the boy. The boy and the tricycle got slightly damaged but the
mother suffered nervous shock.
(vi) Policy consideration do not negative the existence of the duty.
2. Breach of duty
(i) Importance of the object to be attained
The law permits taking chance of some measure of risk that in the public interest
various kinds of activities should go on.
(ii) The magnitude of the risk
The degree of care varies according to the likelihood of the harm and seriousness
of the injury
A person handling a loaded gun is expected to take more care than a person
carrying a ordinary stick.
3 .The amount of consideration for which services etc. are offered.
3.Damages: Damages may be to the body ,reputaion,property,economic loss and
mental harm or nervous shock.
-
8/2/2019 A Critical Study of Negligence
9/15
5. Negligenceproof
Res Ipsa loquitur: The things speaks for itself.
Case1:Municipal co. of Delhi v. Subhagwanti:A clock tower situated in the heart of the city that is in the chandni chowk, it
collapsed and caused death of a nember of persons. The structure was 80 years old
whereas its normal life was 40 to 45 years therefore the defendant held liable to
pay compensation for the consequences of the collapse of the structure
Case2: mangilal v.parasram
A boy was sitting by the side of the road he was run over by a bus coming on the
wrong side of the road held that the defendant was liable on the principle of res
ipsa loquitur.
It is often said thet negligence must be proved , and never will be presumed. The
mere fact that an accident or an injury has occurred,with nothing more, is not
evidence of negligence on the part of anyone. The fact that a manis found dead
upon a railway track after e train has passed is no proof that the train was run
without proper care. There is of course, as a matter of speculation,sufficiently
interesting in itself,always the possibility that the man may have been killed by
reason of negligent operation of the train;but for a decision imposing liability to
respond in damages, this is not enough. What is required is evidence, whichmeans some form of proof; and it must be evidence from which reasonable men
may conclude that, upon the whole,it is more likely that the event was caused by
negligence than that it was not . as long as the conclusion is a matter of mere
speculation or conjecture.
The legal burden of proof is on the claimant, on the basis of the balance of probabilities, thatis it is for the claimant to show that it is more likely than not that the defendants wrong
caused
the loss. As we have seen, this matter is usually resolved by use of the but for test. This is a difficult issue where the damage might also be due to some other cause as well as the
defendants
tort; indeed, the other cause may even be of a non-tortious nature. The claimant must
prove that the damage is due, at least substantially or materially, to the tort.
-
8/2/2019 A Critical Study of Negligence
10/15
6.Professional negligence
Negligence by professionals
In the law of negligence , professionals such as lawyers ,doctors,architects. In the
category are persons professing some special skill. Any task which is required to beperformed with a special skill generally be admitted or undertaken to be performed only if
the person possesses the requisite skill for performing that task.
doctors
architects lawyers
any reasonable man entering into a profession which requires a particular level of
learning to be called a professionals of that branch, impliedly assures the person dealing
with him that the skill which he professes to possess shall be exercised and exercised with
reasonable degree of care and caution. He does not assure his client of the result.
Case1: bolam v. friern hospital management committee : where you get a situation which
involves the use of some special skill or competence , then the test as to whether there has
been negligence or not is not the test of the man on the top of a Clapham omnibus,
Professionals
People with special skill must not be negligent
-
8/2/2019 A Critical Study of Negligence
11/15
because he has not got this special skill. The test is the standard of the ordinary skilled
man exercising and professing to have that special skill.. a man need not posses the
highest expert skill ; it is well established law that it is sufficient if he exercises the
ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art.
Case2: john oni akerele v. the king
A duly qualified medical practitioner gave to his patient the injection of sobita which
consisted of sodium bismutch tartrate as given in the british pharmacopoeia. However ,
what was administered was an overdose of sobita, as a result , the patient died. In action
against the doctor, accused of manslaughter, reckless and negligent act, their lordships of
the privy council held:
(i) That a doctor is not criminally responsible for patients death unless his
negligence or incompetence went beyond a mere matter of compensation between
subjects and showed such disregard for life and safety of others as to amount to acrime against the state ;
(ii) That the degree of negligence required is that it should be gross, and that neither a
jury nor a court can transform negligence of a lesser degree into gross negligence
merely by giving it that appellation.
(iii) It is impossible to define culpable or criminal negligence and it is not possible to
make the distinction between actionable negligence and criminal negligence
intelligible,except by means of illustrations drawn from actual judicial opinion.
Their lordships refused to accpt the view that criminal negligence was proved merely because
a number of persons were made gravely ill after receiving an injection of sobita from the
appellant coupled with a finding that a high degree of care was not exercised. The doctor was
thus acquitted.
Duty in medical profession
(i) Doctors duty to attend to a patient
(ii) Doctors duty of care
(iii) Doctor acting in a callous manner
Some examples of doctors negligence in medical profession
(i)Negligence in free eye camp: case1
Pushpaleela v. state of Karnataka: a free eye camp was organised where 151 persons were
operated upon for cataract problem. Most of them suffered by infection and severe pain after
surgery. 72 out of them lost sight of one eye and 4 lost the sight of both the eyes. There was
found to be caeless and negligence in performing eye operations.
(ii) lack of preventive measures: case1
-
8/2/2019 A Critical Study of Negligence
12/15
Suraj mal chhajer v. state : the petitioners daughter , dr. veena chhajer, aged 25 years, while
performing her duty got contracted hepatitis-b, which resulted in her death.
The rajasthan high court directed the state government to pay an interim compensation of
rs.5 lakh to the petitioner as her doctor was a dedicated doctor.
(iii)penis cut off:
Case 1: c. shivakumar v.dr. john mathur and another
The appellant had a problem in passing urine there was blockage of urine .the
opposite party the doctor in an attempt to perfrom a operation for curing the
problem, totally cut off the penis, which resulted in enormous bleeding, and he
could not pass the urine nad became permanently impotent. The party was held
liable and directed to pay the sum of rs. 8 lakh as a compensationto the petitioner.
-
8/2/2019 A Critical Study of Negligence
13/15
Contributory negligence:
The two most common defences in the negligence action are contributory negligence and
assumption of risk. Since both developed at a comparatively late date in the law of
negligence. And since both clearly operate to the advantage of the defendant, they are
commonly regarded as defences to atort which would otherwise be established.
The requirements for a defence ofvolenti non fit injuria in a negligence action are a
matter for some controversy. It must be shown that the claimant acted voluntarily in the
sense that they could exercise a free choice. Some judges are of the opinion that there
must be an express or implied agreement between the parties before the defence canoperate. The other view is that where the claimant comes across a danger which has
already been created by the defendant the defence can operate. If the defence is successful,
then the claimant will recover no damages at all. This was also the case where contributory
negligence was established before 1945. In cases before that date there was
no practical difference for the claimant in being found to be volenti or contributorily
negligent. The pre-1945 cases must be read with this in mind.
Voluntary
The claimant must have had a genuine freedom of choice before the defence can be
successfully raised against them.
A man cannot be said to be truly willing unless he is in a position to choose freely, and
freedom of choice predicates, not only full knowledge of the circumstances on which the
exercise of choice is conditioned, so that he may be able to choose wisely, but the absence
from his mind of any feeling of constraint so that nothing shall interfere with the freedom
of his will. (Scott LJ inBowater vRowley Regis Corp [1944] KB 476.)
problem
Is it necessary for the defendant to prove that the claimant agreed to waive their legal
rights in order to succeed in a volenti plea?
Judicial views on whether an agreement that the claimant will waive any claim against
the defendant is necessary, are mixed. At one extreme Diplock LJ stated in Wooldridge v
Sumner: The [defence ofvolenti] in the absence of express contract, has no application
to negligence simpliciter where the duty of care is based solely on proximity or
neighbourship in the Atkinian sense.
Where there is an express agreement to such effect there is little difficulty. Whether
the agreement takes the form of a contract term or notice, it will be regulated by statute.
Such waivers are probably covered by the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. An expressagreement by a passenger in a car to waive their rights to sue the driver for negligently
7. Negligence defences
-
8/2/2019 A Critical Study of Negligence
14/15
inflicted injuries is, as we have seen, negated by statute.
Slightly less extreme was Lord Dennings view in Nettleship v Weston: Nothing will
suffice short of an agreement to waive any claim for negligence. The plaintiff must agree,
expressly or impliedly, to waive any claim for any injury that may befall him due to the
lack of reasonable care by the defendant.
Knowledge
In order for volenti to operate, the claimant must have knowledge of the existence of the
risk and its nature and extent. The test for knowledge is subjective. If the claimant should
have been aware of the risk but was not, the defence will fail. (Smith vAustin Lifts Ltd
[1959] 1 WLR 100.) This raises problems where the claimant was drunk at the time.
If they were so drunk that they could not appreciate the nature of the risk, they will not
Contributory negligence
This defence will apply where the damage which the claimant has suffered was caused
partly by their own fault and partly by the fault of the defendant. In order to establish the
defence, the defendant must prove that the claimant failed to take reasonable care
for their own safety and that this failure was a cause of their damage. If contributory
negligence is established, the modern position is that the claimant will have their damages
reduced by the court in proportion to their fault. If they would have received 10,000 but
were found to be 25 per cent contributorily negligent, their damages will be 7,500.
This was not always the case. At common law, if the court found that the claimant was
partially to blame for their injuries, they received nothing at all. Contributory negligence
operated as a complete defence.
The claimant conduct
In considering whether the claimant was contributorily negligent, the court will take
into account factors similar to those which would render the defendant negligent. The
test is basically an objective one, although subjective factors are introduced when looking
at child defendants and persons under a disability.
The claimants failure to take care for their own safety may be a cause of the accident
which results in their damage. This occurs where two motorists are held to be equally to
blame for a collision and the claimant is injured. A person who plies a driver with drinksand then accepts a lift and is injured will also be liable under this head.
Alternatively, a person may place themselves in a dangerous position which exposes
them to the risk of involvement in the accident in which they are harmed.
-
8/2/2019 A Critical Study of Negligence
15/15
Conclusion
Tort is the civil wrong which is not exclusively the breach of contract or breach of trust.
These days