1) Negligence : Meaning
Negligence in general breach of duty caused by omission to do something which is reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. In simple words " where a person has a duty to take care and the care is not taken resulting injury to another.
2) Definition :
(a) Baron Alderson :
Blyth Vs. Biringham Water Works Co. in this case Baron Alderson defined "Negligence is the commission to do something, which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations, which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do".
(b) Prof. Winfield :
According to winfield negligence as a tort is the breach of legal duty to take care which result in damage, undesired by the dependent to the plaintiff.
The definition involves three constituents of the negligence :
(1) A legal duty to exercise due care on the part of the party complained of towards the party complaining the former's conduct within the scope of Duty.
(2) Breach of the said duty;
(3) Consequential damage.
3) Essential Elements
The Plaintiff in an action for Negligence has to prove the following :
(1) That the defendant was under a legal duty of care to him.
(2) There was breach of duty on the part of the Defendant
(3) That the breach of that duty was the legal cause of the damage complain of i.e. the breach of duty must be the direct and proximate cause of damage.
(4) Actual damage must result as negligence is not actionable per se
Relevant Cases :
i) Donoghue Vs. Stevenson (1932) A.C. 532
ii) Latimer Vs. A.E.C Ltd. (1953) A.C. 643
iii) Dr. M. Mayi Gowda vs State of Karnataka II 1996 CPJ 307 Karnataka.
See also
1) Difference between Rash and Negligence act
2) Res Ipsa loquitur means - the thing itself speaks
3) Classification of torts
4) Discharge of Tort
5) How tort can be discharged? Explain various modes of discharging torts.
Negligence in general breach of duty caused by omission to do something which is reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. In simple words " where a person has a duty to take care and the care is not taken resulting injury to another.
2) Definition :
(a) Baron Alderson :
Blyth Vs. Biringham Water Works Co. in this case Baron Alderson defined "Negligence is the commission to do something, which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations, which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do".
(b) Prof. Winfield :
According to winfield negligence as a tort is the breach of legal duty to take care which result in damage, undesired by the dependent to the plaintiff.
The definition involves three constituents of the negligence :
(1) A legal duty to exercise due care on the part of the party complained of towards the party complaining the former's conduct within the scope of Duty.
(2) Breach of the said duty;
(3) Consequential damage.
3) Essential Elements
The Plaintiff in an action for Negligence has to prove the following :
(1) That the defendant was under a legal duty of care to him.
(2) There was breach of duty on the part of the Defendant
(3) That the breach of that duty was the legal cause of the damage complain of i.e. the breach of duty must be the direct and proximate cause of damage.
(4) Actual damage must result as negligence is not actionable per se
Relevant Cases :
i) Donoghue Vs. Stevenson (1932) A.C. 532
ii) Latimer Vs. A.E.C Ltd. (1953) A.C. 643
iii) Dr. M. Mayi Gowda vs State of Karnataka II 1996 CPJ 307 Karnataka.
See also
1) Difference between Rash and Negligence act
2) Res Ipsa loquitur means - the thing itself speaks
3) Classification of torts
4) Discharge of Tort
5) How tort can be discharged? Explain various modes of discharging torts.
0 comments:
Post a Comment