Define Negligence – and write its essential elements with the help of important cases?

Ans. Negligence - In everyday usage, the word negligence denotes mere carelessness. Secondly, in legal usage it
signifies failure to exercise the standard of care which the does as a reasonable man should, by law, have exercised
in the circumstances : if there is no legal duty to take care, lack of care has no legal consequences. In general, there
is a legal duty to take care where it was or should have been reasonably foreseeable that failure to do so was likely to
cause injury. Negligence is, accordingly, a made in which many kinds of harms may be caused by not taking such
adequate precautions as should have been taken in the
circumstances to avoid or prevent that harm, as contrasted with causing such harm intentionally or deliberately. The
various jurists defined negligence as under - Dr. Winfield, “Negligence as a tort is the breach of a legal duty to take
care which results in damage undesired by the defendant to the plaintiff.” 2. B.S.Sinha “Negligence as a tort is the
breach of a legal duty to take care “According to circumstances which results in damages undesired by the defendant
to the plaintiff.” In an action for negligence, the plaintiff has to prove the following essentials. The defendant owed a
duty of care to the plaintiff : The defendant made a breach of that duty : and The plaintiff suffered damage as a
consequence thereof. Duty of Care to the plaintiff – It means a legal duty rather than a mere moral, religious or social
duty. It is not sufficient to show that the defendant was careless, the plaintiff has to establish that the defendant owed
to the plaintiff a specific legal duty to take care. In Donoghue v. Stevenson – A purchased a bottle of ginger – bees,
from a retailer for the appellant, a lady-friend some of the contents were poured into a tumbler and she consumed the
same. When the remaining contents of the bottle were poured into her tumbler, the decomposed body of snail.
Floated out with the ginger-beer. The appellant alleged that she seriously suffered in her health in consequence of
her having drunk part of the contaminated contents. The bottle was said to have been of a dark coloured glass and
closed with a metal cap so that the condition of its contents could not be ascertained by inspection. She brought an
action against the manufacturer for damage. It was held by the house of Lords that the manufacturer owed her a duty
to take care that the bottle did not contain noxious matter, and that he would be liable on the breach of duty. The
house of Lords also held that even though there was no contractual relationship between the manufacturer and the
consumer, the consumer could bring an action and this case thus has done away with “privity of contract” fallacy.
Some other cases 1. Ishwar Devi v. Union of India 2.Rural Transport Service V.Bezlum Bibi 3. Sushma Mitra v.
M.P.S.R.T. Corp. Breach of duty – Breach of duty means not taking due care which is required in a particular case.
The standard of care demanded is that of a reasonable or a prudent man. If the defendant acted like a reasonable
prudent man, there is no negligence. The laws requires taking of three points into consideration to determine the
standard of care required. The importance of the object to be attained – The law does not require greatest possible
care but the care required is that of a reasonable man under certain circumstances. The law permits taking chance of
some measure of risk so that in public interest various kinds of activities should go on. The Magnitude of the risk –
The degree of care varies according to the likelihood of harm and seriousness of injury. A person handling a loaded
gun is expected to take more care than a person an ordinary stick. When there is some apparent risk due to
abnormal conditions, necessary care must be taken to prevent the harm. In Nirmala v.T.N.Electricity Board a high
tension electric wire snapped and resulted in the death of a person due to electrocution, the defendants, who were
maintaining the said wire, were held liable. The fact that the wire snapped and also that it did not become deed after
snapping proved that the wire was not being maintained properly. Some other case Bhagwat Sarup v. Himaliya Gas
Co. Glass gow Corporation v.Taylor Smt. Shivkor v. Ram Naresh.
The amount of consideration for which services etc are offered – The degree of care depends on the kind of services
offered and the consideration charged therefore from the plaintiff, Seller of bottled mineralwater, who charges higher
price than a road side seller of a glass of water, is supposed to take more care as higher standard of purity is
expected from him. A luxury hospital has to offer higher degree of care to its patients than a hospital admitting a
patient in the general ward. Refer – Klaus Mittelbachert v. East India Hotels Ltd. (1997) 3) Damage – It is also
necessary that the defendant?s breach of duty...