1. Tort of Negligence
By Waseem I. khan Assistant Professor Shri Shivaji Law College, Parbhani, Maharashtra contact:

2. Introduction
Negligence consist of neglect to use of ordinary care or skill towards a person to whom the defendant owes the duty of observing ordinary care and skill, by which neglect, the person has suffered injury to his person or property.
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.

3. Meaning of Negligence
The term negligence means where a person has a duty to take care and the care is not taken resulting in injury to another.
In other words infliction of an injury or damage as a result of failure to take care is called negligence.

4. Definition.
Winfield: Negligence as the breach of a legal duty to take care, which results in damage, undesired by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Austin: Negligence thus ‘in case of negligence a party performs not an act to which he is obliged, he breaks positive duty.

5. Essentials of Negligence
A. Duty to take Care:
Here the duty towards the plaintiff must have a legal duty.
There should not be moral, social or religious duty on the part of defendant.
The defendant was careless.

6. Essentials of Negligence
A. Duty to take Care: Ishwardevi v. Union of India
Passengers on footboard
Conductor rung the Bell
Driver overtake another bus

7. Essentials of Negligence
A. Duty to take Care:
Mataprasad v. Union of India

8. Essentials of Negligence
A. Duty to take Care:
Donoghue v. Stevenson

9. Essentials of Negligence
A. Duty to take Care:
Muncipal Board Jaunpur v. Brahm Kishor
Municipality dug pit, left unguarded & unsafe, no sign board of danger, Brahm kishor came on bicycle & fell in the pit.

10. Essentials of Negligence
No Liability when Injury not foreseeable.
There is no liability upon the defendant if the harm is not foreseeable.
Gates v. Mangini Bros.
Lady visitor to the restaurant was injured by the falling of a ceiling fan on her.
Reason for the falling of the fan was a latent defect in the metal of the suspension rod of the fan.
The defendant would not have been discovered by a reasonable man.

11. Essentials of Negligence
No Liability when Injury not foreseeable.
Ryan v. Youngs.
Defendant servant while driving a lorry, suddenly died which resulted in an accident & consequences injury to plaintiff.
The driver appeared to be quit healthy & defendant could not have foresee his sudden death.

12. Essentials of Negligence
B. Breach of Such Duty to take Care.
Breach of such duty means the defendant must not have taken due care.
If the wrongdoer takes a reasonable care then there is no negligence on the part of the wrongdoer.

13. Essentials of Negligence
B. Breach of Such Duty to take Care.
Glasgow Corporation v. Taylor
Poisonous berries.

14. Essentials of Negligence
B. Breach of Such Duty to take Care.
Latimer v. A.E.C. Ltd.

15. Essentials of Negligence
C. Actual Damage.
By the same time the plaintiff must have also taken a reasonable care for his own safety.

16. Res Ipsa Loquitor
Means proof of negligence, the things speaks for itself.
The principle of Res Ipsa Loquitor shifts burden of proof from plaintiff to defendant.
According to Lord Shaw, sometime a thing tell its own story.
The facts and circumstances which the plaintiff has proved establish a prima facie case of negligence against the defendant.

17. Res Ipsa Loquitor
Byrne v. Boadle Mahindranath v. Mathura Das

18. Essentials of Res Ipsa Loquitor
Exclusive Control & Management of Defendant.
The thing causing the damage must be under the control of the defendant or his servant.

19. Essentials of Res Ipsa Loquitor
B. Accident must be such as would not happen without negligence.
If the fact of the accident itself justifies the inference of negligence then all the circumstances may be considered with experience and wisdom.

20. Essentials of Res Ipsa Loquitor
B. Accident must be such as would not happen without negligence.
Muncipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti
Chandni Chowk
Delhi
Normal Life
40 Years
Clock Tower

21. Essentials of Res Ipsa Loquitor
B. Accident must be such as would not happen without negligence.
Skinner v. London & South Coast Railway.
Two train belonging to defendant co. collided.
Plaintiff who was passenger injured.

22. Essentials of Res Ipsa Loquitor
C. No Explanation by the Defendant.
The maxim will not apply if the defendant can explain the happening of the accident.

23. Defenses for Negligence
A. Act of God.
It literary means an act of nature independent of human intervention.
Which cannot be foreseen by any amount of human ability and skill.
If seen cannot be prevented by any means, care and skill.
Earthquake
Lightening
Heavy Rainfall
Flood

24. Defenses for Negligence
B. Inevitable Accident.
Accident means an unexpected occurrence of something that could not have been predicted or prevented.
In such a case, the defendants will not be liable if they had no intention to cause it and if the plaintiff is injured because of it.

25. Defenses for Negligence
B. Inevitable Accident.
Harnam singh v. R. P. Auto Aid.
Bursting of tyre.
Padmavati v. Dugganaika.
Accident due to dislodging of wheel from axle.
Holmes v. Mather. Horse driving on road.

26. Defenses for Negligence
C. Contributory Negligence.
The expression contributory negligence means an act of negligence in which both the defendant and the plaintiff are contributors.
Contributory negligence means failure to take reasonable care of ones own self.
Going wrong side.

27. Defenses for Negligence
Last Opportunity Rule.
According to this rule the person who is having later opportunity to avoid an incident by taking a care will be held liable.
Devis v. Mann
Donkey case

28. Defenses for Negligence
C. Contributory Negligence.
Harris v. Toronto Transit Company.
Conductor warned boy several time
He was injured by coming Vehicle

29. Defenses for Negligence
Last Opportunity Rule.
According to this rule the person who is having later opportunity to avoid an incident by taking a care will be held liable.
Devis v. Mann
Donkey case

30. Defenses for Negligence
Apportionment of Damages.
It has been seen that in cases of contributory negligence damages have also been divided depending upon the proportion of the negligence committed or contributed by both the parties.

31. Defenses for Negligence
Apportionment of Damages.
Vidya Devi v. M. P. State Road Transport Corp.
A motor cyclist ran into a bus negligently and was killed.
The bus driver was also found negligent in not averting the possible collision.
The court found that the deceased motorcyclist was more negligent than the bus driver.
Court awarded the damages to the extent of one third only.

32. Defenses for Negligence
Exception to Contributory Negligence.
1) Doctrine of alternative danger.
If the defendant has placed the plaintiff in a grave situation.
The plaintiff tries to escape from such a situation.
In that process if he sustained a injury.
The defendant cannot setup a defense of Contributory negligence.

33. Defenses for Negligence
Exception to Contributory Negligence.
1) Doctrine of alternative danger.
Jones v. Boyce.
The plaintiff was passenger in defendant coach.
The defendant was driving the coach so negligently that the plaintiff saw imminent danger to his life.
In course of saving himself from the danger he jumped off the coach and his leg was broken.

34. Defenses for Negligence
Exception to Contributory Negligence.
2) Contributory negligence by the Children.
The rule of contributory negligence is not applied in case of children.
Their inexperience is taken into account while deciding the case involving them.
Children are not considered as matured enough as an adult to judge the things correctly.