NEGLIGENCE

 Negligence is a failure to exercise the appropriate and or

ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst
specified circumstances. The area of tort law known
as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a
form of carelessnesspossibly with extenuating
circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that
people should exercise reasonable care in their actions,
by taking account of the potential harm that they might
foreseeably cause to other people or property.
 Someone who suffers loss caused by another's
negligence may be able to sue for damages to
compensate for their harm. Such loss may include
physical injury, harm to property, psychiatric illness, or
economic loss. The law on negligence may be assessed
in general terms according to a five-part model which
includes the assessment of duty, breach, actual cause,
proximate cause, and damages
 Where the laws of intentional torts allow a plaintiff to sue for harm
the defendant caused on purpose, the laws of negligence allow a
plaintiff to sue for harm the defendant caused either by accident or
through reckless behavior. With that in mind, please keep
negligence in the back of your mind when you are analyzing a
scenario involving intentional torts because you may find that a
plaintiff will be able to recover in negligence even if he cannot
recover for an intentional tort. For example:

 Bruce Wayne is the head librarian at the Gotham City Library.

Bruce hires Peter Parker, a private security guard, to monitor the
library at night. Peter’s job is to walk through the library at closing
time to make sure no patrons are still in the building and then lock
the doors for the night. One night, Peter locks up like he is
supposed to but he forgets to walk through the building first.
Unfortunately, Clark Kent, an avid reader, is in the library and does
not realize that the library has closed. Because Peter forgot to
walk through the building, he does not realize that Clark is still
inside and Clark gets locked inside the library for the night. If Clark
sues Peter for False Imprisonment, Clark will lose because Peter
did not intentionally lock Clark in the library. However, even though
Clark will not recover for an intentional tort, he can still sue and
possibly recover against Peter for negligently locking him in the
library.

 In reality, negligence is a blanket term. There are many types of negligence,
and it is very important to know which kind you are attempting to prove, as
they all must be handled differently from one another. The most common
types of negligence that can be proven are:
 1.GROSS NEGLIGENCE
 In these cases the negligence was so careless it showed a complete lack of
concern for the safety of others. Gross negligence is a much more serious
form of negligence that goes a step further than simple careless action.
Example: Hospital staff does not change a surgery patient’s bandages for
several days, resulting in a serious infection.

 2.COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE
 This is where the plaintiff is marginally responsible for the injuries to himself.
The plaintiff may be required to pay a percentage of the damages in a
comparative negligence case. Example: You drive through a green light but
are struck by someone running a red light. You sustain serious injuries
because you were not wearing a seatbelt. Because you were partially
responsible for your injuries, you must pay $3,000 of the $10,000 damages
amount while the defendant must only pay $7,000.
 3.CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
 In contributory negligence cases, if the plaintiff caused
his own injury in any manner, he cannot collect damages
at all. This type of negligence is being abandoned in
many areas. In the example for comparative negligence
above, if contributory negligence applied, you would not
receive any damages because you partially contributed to
your own injury by not wearing a seatbelt.

 4. MIXED COMPARATIVE AND CONTRIBUTORY

 This form of negligence is a combination of contributory
and comparative. Mixed Negligence is where if the
plaintiff is determined to be more than 50% responsible
for his own injury, they may receive only a percentage of
damages, or none at all. Example: Using again the car
accident scenario, if the jury determined that not wearing
your seatbelt was half or more than half the reason you
were injured, you would receive little to no damages.
 5.VICARIOUS LIABILITY
 This form of negligence is where the
defendant is held responsible of the actions
of another person or animal. This form of
liability is often used in cases where young
children or minors caused serious injury, or
a dog attack. The parent of the child and
owner of the dog will be held responsible
for the damages because the child or
animal cannot be responsible for it
themselves. Children under the age of
seven are considered incapable of
negligence. Vicarious Liability can also be
used when an employer fails to properly
oversee their employees, and is thus held
responsible for their actions.
 Duty of care to the plaintiff:
It means a legal duty rather than a mere moral
duty which can be born by many reasons the
most common are:

1.general duty of care owed to the world at

large.
2.A professional relationship which imposes a
duty of care.
3.Relationship owed to neighbours.
 Principle of foreseeability:
1.Depends on reasonable forseeability of injury
of the plaintiff.

2.If at the time of the act or omission, the

defendant could reasonably foresee injury to
plaintiff, he owes a duty to prevent that injury
and failure to it makes him liable for
negligence.

DONOGUE V. STEVENSON(1932)AC562.
 2. Breach of duty:
It means non-observance of due care which is
required in a particular situation.

Standard of care required are:

 Importance of object to be attained.

 The magnitude of risk
 Amount of consideration.
 Remoteness of Damage – they are only payable
for acts which arise as a direct or natural
outcome of breach of duty .
Scott v. Shepherd (1773) 96 KB 525

 Novus Actus Intervenes – this means if there is

an intervening act between the original tort
and the actual harm caused damages will only
lie for the original tort .
Wagon Mound Case (1981) UKPC AC 388
 Doctrine of Res ipsa loquitor - this means
“things speak unto themselves” is asked in
the case of medical negligence.
Byrne v. Boadle (1863) 2 H & C. 722

1.Collapse of a built structure – the public

authority cannot be held liable for the same.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti A.I.R
1966 SC 1750
2.Foreign material left inside after injury –
It was held to be an ease for res ipsa loquitor hence
here doctors can be held liable for the very same .
Mrs Aparna Dutta v. Apollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd.
A.I.R 2000 Mad 340.
 Those situations where because of negligence of the
defendant the plaintiff is exposed to a situation, news or
event which results in extreme psychiatric damage.
 PRE REQUISITES
1.Shocking Event -the event to be of shocking
nature for an ordinary person Wilkinson v.
Downtown(1897) L.R 2 Q.B
2.Proximate Relationship- talks about primary and
secondary victims McLoughlin v. O’Brian (1983) 1
AC 410
3.Reasonable Foresight-presumed knowledge
Bournhill v. Young (1943)A.C 92
4.Psychiatric Injury- presence of a psychiatric injury
PARTICIPANTS:-

1. ANUSHKA JAIN - introduction

2. KHUSHI SHARMA - types
3. SUSHMITA ANAND - essentials
4. TUBA AFTAB – damages and
nervous shock