9. Negligence

What is Negligence?

Negligence is a fundamental concept in the Law of Tort. It refers to the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation, resulting in harm or damage to another person. It includes acts of omission or commission that breach a legal duty of care owed to the plaintiff, which directly causes injury or loss to the plaintiff that was foreseeable.

• According to Winfield and Jolowicz, negligence is the breach of a legal duty of care which results in unwanted damage to the plaintiff.
• In Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works Co, negligence was defined as "the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do or doing something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do".
• Forms of Negligence:
• Nonfeasance: Failure to act when there is a duty (e.g., failing to repair an unsafe building).
• Misfeasance: Performing an act carelessly or improperly.
• Malfeasance: Doing something unlawful or harmful intentionally.

Essential Elements of Negligence

• Duty of Care: The defendant must owe a legal duty to the plaintiff.
• Breach of Duty: The defendant breached that duty by failing to meet the standard of care.
• Causation: The breach caused injury or loss to the plaintiff (both actual cause and proximate cause).
• Damages: The plaintiff suffered actual harm or damage as a result.

Defences in the Case of Negligence

Defendants in negligence claims can use several defences to avoid or limit liability. These defences recognize situations where liability should be reduced or negated because of the plaintiff’s own fault, unforeseen natural events, or other legal principles.

Contributory Negligence

• This defence applies when the plaintiff has also been negligent and contributed to their own injury.
• In this case, the defendant argues that the plaintiff's negligence either partially or fully caused the harm.
• If proven, the plaintiff's compensation can be reduced or even denied.
• Case Example: Butterfield v. Forrester (1809)

The plaintiff was injured by hitting a pole placed unlawfully by the defendant, but since the plaintiff was riding carelessly and did not see the pole, the court held that the plaintiff could not claim damages.

Volenti Non Fit Injuria (Voluntary Assumption of Risk)

• The plaintiff voluntarily accepts the risk associated with the activity causing the injury.
• This is a complete defence, meaning no liability arises if the plaintiff knowingly and willingly accepts the risk.
• The defendant must prove that the plaintiff had full knowledge of the risk and willingly took it upon themselves.

Act of God (Vis Major)

• The defendant is excused from liability if the injury or damage was caused by a natural event outside human control, such as floods, earthquakes, or storms.
• Two conditions must be fulfilled:
• The event must be extraordinary and unforeseeable.
• The damage must be directly caused by this event.

Inevitable Accident

• The defence applies when the accident occurred despite all reasonable care being taken.
• The defendant argues that the injury was unavoidable and not due to negligence.

Statutory Authority

• When an act is authorized by law, even if it causes damage, it may not be considered negligent.
• For example, if a government agency carries out necessary public works that cause some harm.

Real Case Studies on Negligence and Defences

Case 1: Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)

• This landmark case established the modern concept of duty of care.
• The plaintiff suffered illness after drinking ginger beer containing a decomposed snail.
• The court held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumer.
• Importance: It defined that a person must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that could foreseeably injure others.

Case 2: Butterfield v. Forrester (1809)

• The defendant placed a pole across a road.
• The plaintiff, riding carelessly at dusk, collided with the pole.
• Defence of contributory negligence was accepted, denying the plaintiff’s claim.

Case 3: Rylands v. Fletcher (1868)

• Although a case of strict liability, it highlights liability independent of negligence.
• Defendant's reservoir flooded plaintiff's mine through an unknown shaft.
• The court imposed strict liability, but defendants were absolved of negligence due to lack of knowledge.

Summary of Defences in Negligence

Conclusion

• Negligence in tort law arises when a person breaches a legal duty of care, causing foreseeable harm to another.
• It is a key concept that holds individuals and organizations accountable for harm caused by carelessness.
• The defences to negligence, such as contributory negligence, voluntary assumption of risk, act of God, and inevitable accident, ensure fairness by recognizing situations where the defendant’s liability should be limited or negated due to the plaintiff’s own conduct, acceptance of risk, or uncontrollable events.
• Understanding these principles is essential to navigating claims in the law of torts effectively.