Understanding Negligence: Duty, Breach, Causation, and Injury, Study notes of Law

Download Understanding Negligence: Duty, Breach, Causation, and Injury and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity! Summer Internship Program 2021 Student’s Name: Anjali Mani Tripathi Enrollment No.: 20FLICDDN02054 Batch Name & Year: B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) (2020-2025) Project Title: NEGLIGENCE SUBMITTED TO – SUBMITTED BY- DR AVISHEK RAJ ANJALI MANI TRIPATHI 20FLICDDN02054 BA-LLB(Hons.) 1 | Page NEGLIGENCE INTRODUCTION The Indian tort is adopted from English common law formulated in 19th century. It is modified or altered by Indian courts on the basis of equality, justice and good conscience. The term ‘negligence’ is derived from Latin word negligentia which means ‘falling to pick up’. Negligence is defined as failure to take reasonable care towards other person where it is reasonably foreseeable that other people could be harmed by their actions or omissions. It signifies the failure of standard care taken by one person that a prudent person would exercise in similar circumstances. If someone behaved negligently the plaintiff can sue for the injury and loss. No intention to cause harm to other person is involved in negligence. DEFINITION According to Winfield and Jolowicz, Negligence is the breach of a legal duty of care by the plaintiff which results in undesired damage to the plaintiff. Lord Wright states that “Negligence means more than headless or careless conduct, whether in commission or omission; it properly connotes the complex concept of duty, breach, and damage thereby suffered by the person to whom the duty was owed.”1 ESSENTIALS OF NEGLIGENCE OF TORTS ● Duty to take care ● Breach of duty ● Causation ● Injury Duty to take care It is the very first condition under the liability if negligence that there must be a legal duty of defendant towards the plaintiff. Negligence is not just caused because someone did not do 1 https://www.toppr.com/guides/legal-aptitude/law-of-torts/negligence-tort-law/ 2 | Page It is a type of negligence in which if the plaintiff is comparatively at fault for an injury, it means he or she also contributed to the damage. Every state does not allow the plaintiff to seek compensation in comparative negligence. The states that do not permit negligent plaintiff to seek damages use the laws of contributory negligence. VICARIOUS LIABILITY There are many cases where the employer, company, organization is held responsible for an act of their employee. It is a form of negligence where the defendant could be held liable for the actions of animals or other person in the course of employment. For example, a minor child’s parents could be held liable for any injury or damage caused by their child. GROSS NEGLIGENCE If a person’s action shows recklessness or disregard for the safety of others and yet performed the act it comes under gross negligence. The actions may be intentional that causes damage to others. It is different from others in a way where there is no intention to harm other person. A person deliberately and consciously puts other person in danger and infringe their personal rights. Example: a drunk and drive case DEFENSES OF NEGLIGENCE ⮚ Contributory Negligence - It is the plaintiff’s failure to exercise reasonable safety. It occurs when both defendant and plaintiff are negligent to the damage occurred. Both the parties are at fault. For example if A’s driver is driving drunk and B’s driver is rashly driving then both are contributory towards the damage as both failed to take reasonable care. The plaintiff’s compensation would be decreased to certain amount which would be decided by the court. The amount of payment reduced or denied depends upon the courts. 5 | Page ⮚ Inevitable accident - Inevitable accidents are those conditions which had been occurred despite of taking due care. The defendant need to prove that he performed all due diligence in spite of that the plaintiff sustained injury. It means accident that could be physically avoidable. It could not be prevented by ordinary caution or skill. In Stanley v. Powell the defendant and the plaintiff went for a pheasant shooting. While aiming the pheasant, he accidently glanced his gun off an oak tree and shot the plaintiff. It was held that the accident was inevitable and the defendant was not liable. ⮚ Act of God/ Vis Major - The defendant will be liable for those activities only which are under his control or which can be foreseen by him. Some activities which are out of the control of defendant like lightning, flood, drought, earthquake etc. if causes damage to anyone or their presence commute or convert the act of defendant in a dangerous activity, the defendant would not be liable for the compensation. Such extraordinary irresistible act of nature is act of god. In Nicholas v Marsland, the defendant had control over some artificial lakes and extraordinary rainfall which had never been experienced within few years flooded those lakes. The escape of water due to heavy rainfall caused damage to the residential area nearly. The escape of water will be treated as the act of vis major. The defendant was not liable. ⮚ Illegality - the defense of illegality denied recovery if claimant injured while committing an unlawful act. This will be treated as complete defense. In Pitts v Hunt the plaintiff and defendant were heavily drinking. The claimant knew that the defendant did not have a motorbike license and insurance then too he was encouraging him to ride recklessly. The bike met with an accident. The plaintiff bought a suit against the defendant. It was held that the plaintiff’s action arose the defense of illegality hence no compensation would be given. 6 | Page 7 | Page 3. Grant v. Australian Knitting Mill HCA 35, (1933) 50   CLR   387 FACTS The plaintiff bought the underwear consisting of two underpants and two siglets. The stock was purchased by retailer with other stocks from the manufacturer. The plaintiff on wearing it developed skin irritation on ankles and the other day redness on each ankle. He applied calamine lotion and continued to wear it the whole week. The next week he changed his underwear. The skin irritation got worse and developed into dermatitis. He was confined to bed for a long time. When he sufficiently recovered, the condition soon became severe and doctor thought he might die. The appellant bought a suit on the grounds of exposure of skin to Sulphur compounds causing severe case of dermatitis purchased by respondents John Martin & Co. Ltd. and manufactured by Australian Knitting Mills Ld. DECISION The fact show that it was negligence in manufacture. The plaintiff’s skin was exposed to excess sulphite which means that someone is at fault and the appellant need not to mention the exact person. There was a duty to take care. In Donoghue v Stevenson there was no relation between the parties spoken or written but the manufacturer owe a duty of care. The defect was latent in that case and so in this case. The excessive use of sulphite in the pants was hidden defect as that of the remains of snails in the opaque bottle. The garment was made to wear on skin and the manufacturers were negligent hence liable. CONCLUSION The case reveal negligence. The purpose for which the garments were manufactured was to wear and there was no interference between the manufacturing of the garment and its selling so it was the duty of manufacturer to make the products in the that they shall meet the purpose. There was no disclaimer of it being washed before use and also the change of the garment after a week was the practice of the era. So the buyer was not negligent 10 | Page and the manufacturer owe a duty here to produce safe products. The hidden defect could not be examined before the purchase. Hence the facts infers negligence. 4. Bourhill v. Young (1943) AC 92 FACTS Mr. Young was driving rashly and drove the bike past the tram at excessive speed and collided with a car 50 feet away the tramp and met with an accident due to collision with a car. He himself suffered fatal injuries. There was a pregnant lady who just got off the tramp heard the sound of collision. Mr. Young’s body was removed from the spot. The lady immediately saw the aftermath and witnessed a lot of blood on the spot. She went into nervous shock and her baby was still born. A suit of negligence was bought by the lady. DECISION It was held that no duty of care was owed by the defendant and he was not liable for bringing psychiatric harm to the claimant. The duty of care was not owed as there was no proximity between the plaintiff and the defendant and it was also unforeseeable that the sound of the accident would cause psychiatric harm to the defendant. CONCLUSION The facts reveal that the defendant was not liable for negligence as the essential that there was duty of care towards the plaintiff was missing. The consequence of the act or omission must not be unforeseeable or too remote in negligence. If we look into the facts of the case it is evident that there was no foreseeability of the psychiatric harm suffered by the lady and a loud traffic accident would harm a 50 feet away lady who did not even saw the accident or the body of the defendant. Hence the defendant could not be sued for negligence and hence no damages would be incurred by the defendant. 5. Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co (1928) 248 NY 339 11 | Page FACTS The claimant purchased a ticket and was standing on the platform for the train to arrive. A train stopped and two men rushed towards it to catch it. One of the men tripped and the other railway staff rushed to help him. This resulted in falling of a box of firework by one of the member leading to the explosion of the firework. The explosion led to the falling of some scales on the other end of the platform many feet away. The claimant suffered injuries and sued for the same. DECISION It was held that defendant would not be liable. The guards who led the box to fall were negligent but it was not inferred that they were negligent to the plaintiff. There was no disclaimer that the content of the box was fireworks or its fall would lead to explosion. Also the plaintiff was standing at some distance away of the explosion so it would not be foreseeable. To bring a claim of negligence it was needed to proof that the defendant caused the violation of her personal rights. CONCLUSION The above facts reveal remoteness of the consequence of the act. The lady was standing at a reasonable distance and the incident was unforeseeable to affect. Also the box did not reveal the contents or the firework would explode on falling of the box. The guards were negligent upon handling the box but they could not be to the injury of the plaintiff. If it would happen they would be liable by every single damage caused on the platform. In order to bring a suit the plaintiff needs to prove that any infringement of her personal rights had been done. Hence as of other inferences the defendant could not be held liable. 12 | Page