Negligence - Definition - Law Dictionary Home Dictionary Definition negligence

Definition :

Negligence, acting carelessly, a question of law or fact or of mixed fact and law, depending entirely upon the nature of a duty, which the person charged with negligence has failed to comply with or perform in the particular circumstance of each case. A very convenient classification has been formulated corresponding to the degree of negligence entailing liability measured by the degree of care undertaken or required in each case, i.e., (1) ordinary, which is the want of ordinary diligence; (2) slight, the want of great diligence; and (3) gross, the want of slight diligence. A smaller degree of negligence will render a person liable for injury to infants than in the case of adults, see Cooke v. Midland Great Western Railway, 1909 AC 229; and Glasgow Corporation v. Taylor, (1922) 1 AC 44. There is also a peculiar duty to take precaution in the case of dangerous Articles, see Dominion Natural Gas Co. v. Collins, 1909 AC 640. This case should be distinguished from the principle in Fletcher v. Rylands, LR 3 HL 330 (Sm. L.C.), where the custodian of a dangerous thing (e.g., water stored by him, poisonous trees or fumes, sewage, vicious or untamed animals, electricity) is an absolute insurer against, and responsible for any damage done owing to the thing escaping, unless, possibly, the damage is due to the plaintiff's act or default, vis major, or the act of God, or under statutory sanction positively enjoining the act causing damage; even in this last-mentioned case the defendant would still be under a special duty to take precautions, as held in the Dominion case, ubi supra. So also an employer is liable for an accident arising out of dangerous work, even if he employs an independent contractor, Honeywill v. Stein Ltd. v. Larkin Brothers, etc., Ltd., (1934) 1 KB 191. [S. 81, ill. (a), I.P.C.]

So in the civil law there are three degrees of negligence: (1) lata culpa, gross neglect; (2) levis culpa, ordinary neglect; and (3) levissima culpa, slight neglect, Halifax, C. L. 61.

The question of negligence may be one entirely of law, where the case falls within a general settled rule or principle of law; more often, of law and fact and sometimes of fact only where it is left to the jury to decide whether the defendant has shown a want of care which would have been expected in ordinary course of events in the circumstances.

Burden of Proof.--The onus of proving negligence rets on the plaintiff; in some cases re ipsa loquitur, i.e., where the thing resulting from it speaks for itself, as in the case of a railway collision between trains owned by the same company, Carpue v. London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Co., (1844) 5 QB 747]

Master and Servant.--A master is responsible to the public, and also, under certain conditions, to his servant, for the negligence of his servant, although a fellow servant with others, acting in the execution of his master's business. See MASTER AND SERVANT.

A manufacturer is liable for negligence in the making or preparation of his wares for sale and use by the public, for whom they are intended: see e.g., Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills Ltd., 79 SJ 815.

Action by Representatives of Deceased Persons.--An action for pecuniary loss arising from negligence causing death passes to the representative or next of kin of the deceased, by the (English) Fatal Accidents Act, 1846 (9 & 10 Vict. c. 93) [(English) 'Lord Campbell's Act'], and the (English) Fatal Accidents Act, 1864 (27 & 28 Vict. c. 95). See Chitty's Statute, tit. 'Executors,' and the Fatal Accidents (Damage) Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 7). The (English) Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934 (24 & 25 Geo. 5, c. 41), amends the (English) Fatal Accidents Acts, 1846-1908, so as to include adopted and illegitimate children among dependants, and damages may be awarded in respect of funeral expenses. This Act has to a great extent revolutionized the application of the principle actio personalis moritur cum persona, to which the above-mentioned Acts have only been isolated exceptions. See ACTIO PERSONALIS and LAW REFORM. See CAMPBELL'S (LORD) ACTS.

These Acts apply as well for the benefit of the representatives of a deceased foreigner as for those of a British subject, at all events if the wrong-doer is not a foreigner, Davidson v. Hill, (1901) 2 KB 606.

Contributory Negligence of Plaintiff.--If the plaintiff has been guilty of contributory negligence, in other words, if with ordinary care he might have avoided the consequence of the defendant's negligence, he cannot recover, Butterfield v. Forester, (1809) 11 East, 60, and British Columbia Electric Railway v. Loach, (1916) 1 AC 719; and see VOLENTI NONFIT INJURIA.

Consult Beven on Negligence and Smith's Leading Cases, sub tit, Coggs v. Bernard.

Negligence is absence of reasonable or prudent care which a reasonable person is expected to observe in a given set of circumstances. But the negligence for which a consumer can claim to be compensated under this Sub-s. must cause some loss or injury to him, Consumer Unity & Trust Society v. Bank of Baroda, (1995) 2 SCC 150 (153).

(ii) 'Negligence' is the omission to do something which a reasonable man is expected to do or a prudent man is expected to do, State of Maharashtra v. Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke, AIR 1995 SC 2499: (1995) 5 SCC 659.

(iii) To emphasis the point, it may be reiterated that in such cases, the event or accident must be of a kind which does not happen in the ordinary course of things if those who have the management and control use due care, Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 1848: (1980) 1 SCC 30: (1980) 1 SCR 95.

(iv) Negligence is a term of art but has distinct meanings in different jurisdictions. In Torts, damage is an essential ingredient, but that element is not necessary in the law of master and servant. In criminal law there are a series of offences based on negligence in which loss or injury is not material. It is enough if the act is likely to cause injury or endanger life, Kedarnath v. State, AIR 1965 All 233.

Negligence is omission of duty caused either by an omission to do something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations who ordinarily by reason of conduct of human affairs would do or obligated to, or by doing something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do. Negligence does not always means absolute carelessness, but want of such a degree of a care as is required in particular circumstances. Negligence is failure to observe, for the protection of the interests of another person, the degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer, AIR 2003 SC 4182 (4184): (2003) 8 SCC 731. (Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, s. 168). [s. 81, ill. (a), I.P.C.]

As a tort is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do, [See Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co., (1856) 11 Exch 781: Bridges v. Directors etc. of N.L. Ry. (1873-74) HL 213; Governor-General in Council v. Mt. Saliman, (1949) ILR 27 Pat 207: AIR 1949 Pat 388]; Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel, AIR 1996 SC 2111 (2116): (1996) 4 SCC 332.

Negligence in common parlance means and imply 'failure to exercise due care, expected of a reasonable prudent person'. It is a breach of duty and negligence in law ranging from inadvertence to shameful disregard of safety of others. It is caused by heedlessness or inadvertence, by with the negligent party is unaware of the results which may follow from his act negligence is thus a breach of duty or lack of proper care in doing something, in short, it is want of attention and doing of something which a prudent and a reasonable man would not do, M.S. Greval v. Deep Chand Sood, AIR 2001 SC 3660 (3665): (2001) 8 SCC 151.

Negligence, has many manifestations ' it may be active negligence, collateral negligence, comparative negligence, concurrent negligence, continued negligence, criminal negligence, gross negligence, hazardous negligence, active and passive negligence, willful or reckless negligence or negligence per se, Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel, (1996) 4 SCC 332: AIR 1996 SC 2111.

Negligence, is a tort, State of Harayana v. Santra, (2000) 5 SCC 182.

Negligence, means 'the test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill. A man need not possess the highest expert skill at the risk of being found negligent. It is well-established law that it is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art....... In the case of a medical man, negligence means failure to act in accordance with the standards of reasonably competent medical man at the time'.. there may be one or more perfectly proper standards; and if a medical man conforms with one of those proper standards then he is not negligent, Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee, (1957) 2 All ER 118: (1957) 1 WLR 582.