Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonable prudent person would exercise in like
circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness,
According to Jay M. Feiman of the Rutgers University School of law, the core idea of negligence
is that people should exercise reasonable care when they act by taking account of the potential
Someone who suffers loss caused by another’s negligence may be able to sue for damages to
compensate for the their harm. Such loss may include physical injury, harm to property,
psychiatric illness, or economic loss. The law on negligence when one person can sue another
person in negligence is not possible to define in general terms. It can depend on the kind of loss,
he relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, and other factors.
In everyday usage, the word “negligence” denotes mere carelessness. In legal sense it signifies
failure to exercise standard of care which the doer as a reasonable man should have exercised in
the circumstances. In general, there is a legal duty to take when it was reasonably foreseeable
that failure to do so was likely to cause injury. Negligence is a mode in which many kinds of
Thankfully, in order to prove the negligence and claim damages, a claimant has to prove a
DUTY OF CARE
As we see, the concept of a duty of care was created in the Donoghue case, the house of lords
stated that every person owes a duty of care to their neighbor. The lords went to explain that
“neighbor” actually means a “person” so closely and directly affected by my act that ought
reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected. If still in operation today the
In many cases brought before the courts it is evident that a duty of care exists between the
defendant and the claimant. The real issue whether or not the actions of the defendant were
sufficient to meet their duty. To determine this the court will set the standard of care that they
should have met. This standard of consists of the actions which the court considers as
“reasonable person” would have taken in the circumstances. If the defendant failed to act
reasonably given their duty of care, then they will be found to have breached it.
DAMAGE
This is a loss caused to a person after breach of duty to care, an affected part of this
circumstances is capable of claiming the damage because, a person who breached a duty to care
was lawfully supposed to take care of that thing which caused damage.
Sometime tort negligence have its defenses when happen a person commit it, the following are
defenses of negligence.
Contributory negligence, it was the common law rule that anyone who by his own negligence
contributed to the injury of which he complains cannot maintain an action against another in
Durby, which he had no right to do. The plaintiff was riding that way at 8’oclock in the evening
in August, when dusk was coming on, but the obstruction was still visible from a distance of 100
yards, he was riding violently, came against the pole and fell with the horse, it was held that the
Act of God or Vis major, it is a such a direct, violent sudden and irresistible act of nature as
could not, by any amount of human foresight have been foreseen, if foreseen, could not by any
amount of human care and still, have been resisted. Such as , storm, extraordinary fall of rain,
In case, Nicholas Vs Marsland2, the defendant had a series of artificial lakes on his land in the
heavy rain, some of the reservoirs burst and carried away four county bridges. It was held that,
the defendant was not liable as the water escaped by the act of God.
Inevitable accident, also works as a defense of negligence. An inevitable accident is that which
could not possibly, be prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill. It means
In Brown V. Kendal3, the plaintiff’s and defendant’s dogs were fighting, while the defendant
was trying to separate them, he accidently hit the plaintiff in his eye who was standing nearby.
The injury to the plaintiff was held to be result of inevitable accident and the defendant
1
(1809) 11 East 60;
2
(1875) LR 10 EA 255;
3
(1859) 6 cossing 292
Voluntary acceptance of the risk of injury (volenti non fit injuria), in this manner, if a
defendant can prove the claimant accepted the risk of loss or damages they will not e liable.
Acceptance can be expressed ( usually by a consent form being signed) or implied through the
claimant’s conduct.
In case, Wooldridge V. Summer4, the plaintiff was a professional photographer, during a horse
show he positioned himself at the edge of the arena. He was knocked down and injured by a
horse when the rider lost control while riding too fast. The court of appeal held that the defendant
riders failure to control his horse was simply an error of judgement which did not amount to
negligence. The standard of case owed by a competitor to a spectator was not to act with reckless
Criminal activity (Ex turpi causa), the court may deny an action to a claimant who suffered
damage while participating in a criminal activity. In negligence actions the court may find that
no duty of care was owed in the circumstances. The defense may be referred to as illegality of ex
turpi causa non oritur acto. This means that an action cannot be founded on a sad cause.
In case, Vellino V. Chief constable of the greater Manchester police 5, the claimant was
injured when he jumped from a second floor window in order to avoid arrest by the police. He
alleged that the police owed a duty of care not negligently to let him escape after they arrested
him. The court of appeal (by a majority) held that there was no duty of case in these
circumstances rather than applying the defense. The dissenting judge (sedley L J) felt that the
doing justice.
4
(1963) 2 QB 43
5
[2002] 1 WLR 218
REFERENCE
BOOKS
Me Garry’s , manual of law of tort, sixth edition, sterens and sons, London 1982 chapter 1 and 2
OTHER SOURCES
WEBSITES
www.legalservicesindia.com
www.accaglobal.com
catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk