Negligence under Law of Torts: Meaning, Essentials, Remedies and Defences
⚖️ Negligence under Law of Torts
1. Meaning of Negligence
Negligence is a tort that occurs when a person fails to take reasonable care to avoid causing harm or injury to another person. It is a breach of a legal duty to take care, resulting in damage to the plaintiff.
It is the most common tort used to claim compensation for injuries caused by carelessness.
Negligence does not involve intention; it is about lack of due care.
It protects people from unreasonable risk created by others’ careless acts or omissions.
2. Essentials of Negligence
For a successful claim of negligence, the following four essentials must be established:
| Essential | Explanation | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Existence of Duty of Care | The defendant owed a legal duty to the plaintiff to take reasonable care to avoid harm. | Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) |
| 2. Breach of Duty | The defendant failed to exercise the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the circumstances. | Bolton v. Stone (1951) |
| 3. Causation | The breach of duty directly caused the injury or damage to the plaintiff. | Barnett v. Chelsea Hospital (1969) |
| 4. Damage or Injury | The plaintiff suffered actual loss or harm as a result of the defendant’s breach. | General principle in all negligence cases |
Explanation of Each Essential
Duty of Care: A legal obligation recognized by the court, requiring a person to conform to a standard of reasonable care.
Established by the Neighbour Principle in Donoghue v. Stevenson.
Breach of Duty: When the defendant’s conduct falls below the standard expected of a reasonable person.
Courts consider the likelihood of harm, severity of harm, and burden of precautions.
Causation: Must prove the breach caused the damage, using the “but for” test — but for the defendant’s negligence, the damage would not have occurred.
Damage: Actual harm or loss suffered by the plaintiff; purely emotional or economic loss may not always be recoverable.
3. Remedies in Negligence
The primary remedy available to the plaintiff in negligence is compensation (damages).
Types of Remedies:
| Remedy | Description |
|---|---|
| Compensatory Damages | Monetary compensation to cover actual loss, injury, or damage suffered. |
| Nominal Damages | Small sum awarded when negligence is proven but no substantial loss occurred. |
| Exemplary or Punitive Damages | Awarded in rare cases to punish gross negligence or recklessness and deter similar conduct. |
| Injunction | Rare in negligence; court order to prevent ongoing or future harm. |
4. Defences to Negligence
The defendant may use the following common defences to avoid or reduce liability:
| Defence | Explanation | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Contributory Negligence | Plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to the harm, reducing or barring recovery. | Butterfield v. Forrester (1809) |
| 2. Volenti non fit injuria (Consent) | Plaintiff voluntarily accepted the risk of harm, so cannot claim damages. | Morris v. Murray (1991) |
| 3. Inevitable Accident | Harm occurred due to an accident that could not be prevented even with reasonable care. | General tort principle |
| 4. Act of God | Natural disasters or extraordinary events outside human control. | General tort principle |
| 5. Necessity | Defendant’s actions were necessary to prevent greater harm. | General tort principle |
5. Important Case Laws on Negligence
1. Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) AC 562
Facts: Mrs. Donoghue became ill after drinking a ginger beer containing a snail.
Held: Manufacturer owed duty of care to consumer. Established duty of care and neighbour principle.
Significance: Laid foundation for modern negligence law.
2. Bolton v. Stone (1951) AC 850
Facts: A cricket ball hit outside the ground injured a passerby.
Held: No negligence as the likelihood of harm was very small, and reasonable precautions existed.
Significance: Highlighted reasonable foreseeability and standard of care.
3. Barnett v. Chelsea Hospital (1969) 1 QB 428
Facts: A man died after hospital failed to treat him properly.
Held: Hospital was negligent, but breach did not cause death (victim would have died anyway).
Significance: Demonstrated the importance of causation in negligence.
4. Butterfield v. Forrester (1809) 11 East 60
Facts: Plaintiff injured himself partly due to his own negligence.
Held: Plaintiff barred from full recovery due to contributory negligence.
Significance: Early case establishing contributory negligence defence.
5. Morris v. Murray (1991) 2 QB 6
Facts: Plaintiff was injured in a flight with a drunk pilot.
Held: Plaintiff voluntarily accepted risk; defence of volenti non fit injuria succeeded.
Significance: Established limits of consent as a defence.
6. Summary Table
| Aspect | Details | Example Case |
|---|---|---|
| Duty of Care | Legal obligation to avoid causing harm | Donoghue v. Stevenson |
| Breach of Duty | Failure to exercise reasonable care | Bolton v. Stone |
| Causation | Direct link between breach and injury | Barnett v. Chelsea Hospital |
| Damage | Actual harm or loss | General principle |
| Defences | Contributory negligence, consent, inevitable accident | Butterfield v. Forrester, Morris v. Murray |
✅ Conclusion
Negligence is a civil wrong that holds people accountable for careless acts causing harm to others. The essentials of negligence—duty, breach, causation, and damage—form the basis of most tort claims involving accidents, medical malpractice, product liability, and more.
Courts balance the need for compensation against fairness to defendants through established defences. The law of negligence continues to evolve, ensuring protection against careless harm while promoting responsible behavior.
RELATED Blog
0 comments