NEGLIGENCE

 Everyday usage denotes carelessness.

 Legal usage indicates a failure to exercise a standard of care which a reasonable man would have
exercised. This is a legal duty to take care when it is reasonably foreseeable that failure to do so will
result in damage/injury to your neighbor.
 Negligence is doing something a reasonably prudent person would not do, or not doing something (s)he
would, under similar circumstances.
 “Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations
which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent
& reasonable man would not do.” – Blyth v Birmingham Water Works Co.
Essentials of Negligence
 There must be a duty of care
 There must be a breach of this duty
 This breach must result in injury to the plaintiff.
 This breach must have a proximate, causal connection between itself and the caused injury. [Breach
must lead to injury. Breach leading to X,Y,Z events which are tangentially related to the injury does
not give rise to liability.]
The Reasonable Man
The legal standard to which the defendant is held is not of his own, but a man of “ordinary prudence” or
one that “uses ordinary care and skill”; this is a hypothetical man. Basically refers to a cool, calm,
collected person who is aware of his/her surroundings and the impact of his/her decisions, and takes
these consequences into account before making a move.
Notions of reasonability change with the times – obiter in Jay Laxmi Salt Works v State of Gujarat. Ex –
a modern blood donor is expected to check himself for HIV before donating blood. This would not have
come under the ambit of “reasonable care” in the period prior to the 1980s.
Same case with standard of care. You cannot have an absolute scale for the standard one must practice.
The standard of care varies with the facts in question. The standard of care that a goldsmith must
practice in piercing someone’s ear is not the same standard that a surgeon is held to. Basically, be
reasonable in setting your standards.
In the case of specialized professions, mere specialization does not lead to an extreme duty being
imposed on the practitioner. The standard of care must not be too low, nor is it very high. It is of a mere
reasonable level.
 For doctors, just because they gave a wrong diagnosis does not indicate that they were negligent in their
practice if they conducted all expected tests and exercised an ordinary degree of professional skill and
competence. This is due to the fact that there is scope for genuine difference in opinion in the case of
medicine. [[to substantiate with case law, cite M.K. Ganguly v S Mukherjee and Anr.]]
Medical practitioners are held to be negligent if the error in diagnosis is so huge that it is obvious that
this was due to negligence and absence of reasonable skill. [[In Bholidevi v State of JK, the doctor gave
an intravenous injection when he was supposed to give an intramuscular injection. In this case, he was
held liable.]]
Damages
It is not sufficient if there has been negligent behavior on the part of the defendant. There must be
specific injury caused to the appellant, which was caused due to the defendant’s negligent behavior. This
injury must be reasonably foreseeable and there must be proximity between the injury and the negligent
act. The amount of compensatory damages depends on the facts of the case and the degree of negligence
of the defendant.
Proceedings in cases of negligence
The general rule regarding burden of proof in negligence cases is that it is for the plaintiff to prove the
negligence of the defendant. He must not only prove the facts of the defendant’s negligent act and his
damage but has to show that there is proximity between the two.
 CASES
Case Name
Donoghue v Stevenson
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd.
Arun Kumar v Union of India
Barness v Hampshire County Council
Facts of the Case
Person purchased a bottle of ginger
beer for his “lady friend”; there
was a snail/disgusting thing in the
bottle, this led to an adverse effect
on the lady friend’s health. The
manufacturer of the beer was held
liable, citing negligence.
Some undertrials escaped from
custody while the guards were
asleep, while on duty. [sounds like
Himalaya lol] The undertrials
acquired a boat and proceeded to
collide into a boat and damage it.
The Home Dept. was held
vicariously liable for the guards’
negligence.
3 year old kid stuck his hand in a tiger
enclosure in a zoo and got his hand
chewed off [serves him right].
Held that the zoo was absolutely
liable and was negligent in not
ensuring that the zoo was safe.
5 year old kid allowed to go home
alone, a few minutes before school
hours, even though rules mandated
that children be handed over to
their parents at the end of school
hours. The boy was injured in a
road accident [typical kids] and the
school authorities were held liable
as they had a duty of care to ensure
 safety of the school children.
Bourhill v Young Plaintiff was getting down from a car.
A motorcycle accident took place,
which the plaintiff did not see. She
only heard a loud collision and as
she approached the accident site,
she caught a sight of blood and
complained of nervous shock. She
delivered a stillborn baby a month
later. The case for negligence on
the part of the motorcycle was
dismissed as it was held that the
deceased motorcycle owed no duty
of care to the plaintiff.
Ryan v Young A truck driver was truck driving when
he suddenly suffered from a severe
heart attack. The truck then
stopped trucking and went off the
road and dashed into a tree. This
caused damage to the passengers
seated inside. However, the truck
company was not held vicariously
liable as it was a case of inevitable
accident.
Shivkar Motasingh v Ram Naresh Picture the scene – some teachers and
their students have gone on a field
trip to the banks of the Sabarmati.
Fun times for all. The boys finish
their meals and proceed to play in
the water. The teachers,
meanwhile, start eating lunch. This
pretty picture is then shattered by
the drowning of a boy. The rest of
the children gather around his
dying body and cry instead of

Phillips v William Whiteley Ltd.
Saraswati Parabhai v Grid Corp of
Orissa
Cook v S.
Manjeet Kaul v Deval Bus Service
practicing CPR. Idiots. The
teachers rush to the spot and find
him dead. The teachers [school
authority vicariously] were held
liable for negligence and not
exercising due care in ensuring the
safety of the children.
Goldsmiths piercing ears aren’t
expected to take the same
precautions as a surgeon, but
merely the same level of care as
expected of a goldsmith.
During heavy rains, an electric pole
with live wires got uprooted and
was lying on the ground, waiting to
kill people. The plaintiff’s husband
was one of its victims. The court
held that the Grid Corp was liable
for breach of duty to take care so
that the public’s lives are not
endangered by live wires lying in
public places/roads.
The plaintiff’s divorce case was
decided against her due to her
lawyer not showing up, despite the
Court giving him several chances.
Lawyer held for negligence.
Appellant’s husband killed in a bus
accident. Appellant appeals for
increased damages but her
lawyer’s failure to show up on
multiple occasions led to the Court
passing an ex-parte judgment
against her. High Court held that
 the lawyer had violated Code of
Conduct and directed him to pay
1000 $$$ to the appellant as
compensation for losing her case.
Bholidevi v State of J&K The doctor gave an intravenous
injection when he was supposed to
give an intramuscular injection. In
this case, he was held liable for
medical negligence.
Kumari v State of TN 6 year old girl fell into an uncovered
manhole and died. The SC held the
State vicariously liable for the
negligence of its sanitary officials.