Negligence in Law of Torts

Negligence under law of torts, in simple words The negligence defined that When the person doing their work in Negligently or Carelessly manner where various torts committing like Nuisance, tresspass, Defamation which causing Damage.
Negligence is a state of mind it is also specific tort having certain elements, Elements of Negligence;
Duty to take care
Breach of that Duty
Damage 
 Causation

Duty to take Care: We can prove this elements by proving reasonable manner.
Breach of Duty: We can prove this elements by test of reasonable man. ( Replace the same person from same category).
Damage:  When defendant's caused breach of duty and also by defendant's own negligence then it caused damage to the plaintiff.
Causation: Causation means the reason of damage is negligence. There must ne an link between act or consequence of the defendant's acts caused injury to the plaintiff.
When above these three elements when combine together forms a negligence. It means that there was a duty of defendant was caused damage.
Case: Dongohue v. Stevenson A.I.R (1932)
In this Case the person purchased the bottle of ginger beer and bottle was opaque and nothing was visible from outside and the purchaser gifted the bottle to the friend who was lady. She consumed the content of the bottle into the tumbler she saw a snail in the state of decomposition and because of contaminated beer she fell ill and hospitalised.
Court found that all Three Elements Duty to take Care, Breach of Duty, Damage, In this Case made the defendant liable for Negligence.
Lord Atkin was there in the Court, He was influenced by the Principal " Do love thy neighbour "  and he observed that the person to whom you anticipate that he is going to injure by your act is your neighbours and you should and duty of your neighbours to take care.
No reasonable possibility of as we say in the absence of reasonable care in the products will result in the injury to the Consumer's life or property. reasonable care duty must be there for consumer.

Now we will deal with the Essential of Negligence in brief:
As we Explain the Donoghue v. Stevenson Case cover under the essential point in the Duty of care to the plaintiff.
Now the Duty take care on Reasonable foreseeability of injury 
Case: Dhangauriben v. M. Mulchandbhai  A. I. R. 1981 Gujarat. 264.
On the main road  on the pillion with his son a scooterist was going. One Car coming from behind. In the City area car was driven by driver at excessive high speed in reckless manner and also the after the accident, brakes applied by the driver. Scooter was badly hit by the Car, Impact of  accident was so forceful that very badly at a considerable distance, scooter was thrown. Scooterist was seriously injured and pillion rider also fell down into a ditch, it was held by the Court that  the driver was held guilty of recklessly and negligent driving. On the left side of the road, Car was driven by the  driver at High speed, hence here driver was held liable.
When injury not foreseeable there is No liability
Case Cates v. Mongini Bros. (1917) 19 Bomb.  L. R.  778
It was held in this case that In a restaurant one lady visitor was getting badly injured by the ceiling fan falling on her and she get badly affected. Falling of the fan reason  was that latent defect in the suspension rod metal in the fan. The fan defect also not noticed by a reasonable person. It was held that Harm was not so foreseable, since the action against the running the restaurant( defendant's)  by Plaintiff not foreseeable, Hence Defendant Held  not liable to the loss caused By the plaintiff and also not for negligent.

 Case: Ryan v. Youngs ( 1938) I AII E. R. 522.
It was held in this case that the defendant servant suddenly died when driving a Lorry, which also caused an accident and due to this plaintiff also affected by injury. The defendant driver was appeard  quite healthy and defendant not also foresee about the sudden death. so it was held by the Court that the death caused by the accident of defendant driver was held by the Act of God and his hence, defendant not liable for his driver's.

Remote possibility does not mean Reasonable foreseeability
Case: In S.K Devi v. Uttam Bhoi A. I. R.  1974 Orissa  207
It was held in this Case that At 2:30p.m. in the broad daylight a boy having the age 7 to 8 years was badly hit by truck where he got harmful injuries. A place where driver negotiating, and children behaviour is unpredictable received from nature of injuries, held that Negligence on the part of the driver held liable.
Duty to be taken in Medical Profession
Doctor duty of care points to be noted are:
Whether to undertake the case deciding it.
What treatment to give deciding it.
Doctor duty to attend the patients.
Administration of the treatment duty to take care by the doctor.

Case: Jasbir Kaitlyn v.  State of Punjab A. l. R 1995 P. and H. 278.
On the night of 25- 26 June, 1993 from the bed in the Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Amritsar. A newly born child suddenly missing from hospital. Mother and other relatives of the child cried and child discovered in a bleeding condition. With the eyeball,  one eye  totally  gogued out near the bathroom washbasin child was found. Child mother  and relatives contended replacement of the child.  On the other hand, hospital  authorities contended that cat had been taken away the child,  damage also caused by a cat. Court found that Hospital authority was held liable for negligence and hospital pay compensation of Rs.  1,00,000 to the child  parents for damage.

Case: A.H. khodwa v.  State of Maharashtra AIR, 1996 ACJ 505( S. C.) 
After  a sterilization operation the child  birth of a patient. Surgeon  negligently in the patient  abdomen  left a mop. It result in her death and The doctor performing  operation negligently manner  and for that Hospital authority negligently and vicariously liable.

Case: C. Sivakumar v. Dr. John Mathur and Another III ( 1998) CPJ 436 (Tamil Badu S. C. D. R. C.) 
It was held in this case patient had the problem of blockage of urine. Doctor for curing the problem, perform the operation and cut the part of penis, and it caused bleeding, urine also could not pass permanently importent.  Doctor perform the operation negligently due to this Doctor was held liable was also liable of loss for compensation Rs. 8,00,000.
Case: Lakshmi Rajan v. Malar Hospital Ltd. III (1998) CPJ 586 ( Tamil  Nadu S. C. D. R. C) 
It was held in this case that, year  40 age married woman, in her breast a painful lump developed,  the hospital negligently removed the  lady  uterus without justification. It was held that Hospital liable for negligence and also pay Rs.2,00,000 as compensation.
Case: Robinson v. Post office 1974 WlR.( Doctor not liable) 
It was held in this case, that the person fell down in the post office staircase because the staircase was not properly maintained and during treatment doctor gave him anti tetanus injection and because of that he got suffered Encephalitis. He filed a case against post office. The Doctor was not negligent there was no negligence and no new act interveins. The Court found that Doctor not held liable and Court observed that the Encephalitis was by Post office and the Post office was held liable and also for injury to the plaintiff.

Death caused Due to wrong blood group transfusion 
Case : R.P. Sharma  v.  State of Rajasthan A. I. R. 2002 Raj.104
It was held in this Case that the In the S. M.S Hospital,  Jaipur on 23- 2-1998 the petitioner wife was admitted for the  removal of  gallstone operation. 7-3-1998 she was operated in hospital, where the  operating surgeon advised  Transfusion of blood group O +ve was transfused. After on 7-3-1998 at 9.00 From the Blood Bank  bottle of blood  was obtained. Due to the negligence  of hospital  staff  another blood group , B +ive. given to the petitioner wife.  Soon  patient condition deteriorated on  8-3-1998. Her eyesight  she lost and on 9th March, 1998 she died. The State ran that  hospital  was held liable and also vicariously liable  for the death caused by Hospital Staff doing negligence.

Duty  must be owed  to the plaintiff 
When Defendant held not liable In the Case: Bourhill V. Young 1943 AC
In this case the lady saw a motorcyclist running at a very violent speed then she gets to know about accident, she directly approached to that accident place. She saw huge amount of blood lying on the road although the body of motorcyclist was removed by that place. It caused a shock to the lady she gave a birth to a dead child as she was pregnant at that time. She field a case of negligence against the successor of motorcyclist on the part of motorcyclist. No breach was committed by him and no negligence the Court decided the case in favour of defendant and not liable.
Breach of Duty , 
Standard care must be required and for that following points should be known and required are the Object importance to be attained.
Risk of magnitude
Amount of Consideration services offered
The following case we have to know those are;
First deal with the Object importance to be attained 
Case Latimer v. A.E.C Ltd. [1953] AC 643
 It was held in this case that factory was flooded with water because of heavy rainstorm and also in the factory oil gets mixed up with water due to this an oil makes floor very slippy. The factory management ordered dust ( wooden powder) they spread it over the surface and because of unavailability of saw dust in large quantity some patches remained uncovered and one of the employee fell down because of the slippery surface and injured. Court observed that They have acted in the manner of reasonable man. Slippery floor by oil was a higher risk and closing down it like a prudent man and there was a duty to take care but they committed ," No Breach" of duty. Hence not liable.
Risk of Magnitude
Case;  Sagar Chand v. State of J.& K.   A. I. R. 1999 J. and K.154.
It was held in this case that the age of 7 and 11 years children in the village were passing through in the paddy field and for bath they were going. Children were came in the contact with electric wires, got died. It was held that State Department was held vicariously liable for the negligence and also liable for compensation Rs. Sixty thousand to Seventy- five thousand.

Amount of consideration for services offered
Case: klaus Mittelbachert v. East India Hotels ltd. A. I. R. 1997 Delhi  201, at 209,210 ( Single  judge) 
It was held in this case that One of the foreigner he saw pilot by profession stayed in Oberoi Hotel Delhi during his visit to India. There was appropriate place made near to the swimming pool of hotel to jump into the pool here the water is not upto the mark into the pool and due to this his head struck with the surface of the pool and after the long treatment he not well and suddenly his death has taken place. Duty must not fulfilled and hence, hotel liable for negligence.
Damage: Damage caused when defendant's doing their work negligently and also where higher amounts of damage caused to the plaintiff whereas for that Damages plaintiff recover compensation that is Damage.

Written By Jyoti
Student at ICFAI UNIVERSITY DEHRADUN