Law of negligence is one of the most important branch of tort law, deals with the various aspects of negligence between the professional's and the layman.
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...
Law of negligence
1. Law of Negligence
The law of negligence requires that persons conduct themselves in a manner that
conforms to certain standards of conduct. Where a person’s actions violate those
standards, the law requires the person to compensate someone who is injured as
a result. In some instances, the law of negligence also covers a person’s omission
to act. In tort law, negligence is a distinct cause of action. The Restatement
(Second) of Torts defines negligence as
"Conduct that falls below the standard established by law for the protection of
others against unreasonable risk of harm"
Essential Elements of Negligence
Negligence generally consists of five elements, including the following:
1. Duty
2. Breach of Duty
3. Cause In Fact
4. Proximate Cause
5. Damages
1. Duty
The outcomes of some negligence cases depend on whether the defendant owed
a duty to the plaintiff. Such a duty arises when the law recognizes a relationship
between the defendant and the plaintiff, and due to this relationship, the
defendant is obligated to act in a certain manner toward the plaintiff.
Example
In the example, involving the defendant loading bags of grain onto a truck, and
striking a child with one of the bags. The first question that must be resolved is
whether the defendant owed a duty to the child.
2. 2. Breach of Duty
A defendant is liable for negligence when the defendant breaches the duty that
the defendant owes to the plaintiff. A defendant breaches such a duty by failing
to exercise reasonable care in fulfilling the duty.
Example
In the example above, a jury would decide whether the defendant exercised
reasonable care in handling the bags of grain near the child.
3. Cause In Fact
Under the traditional rules in negligence cases, a plaintiff must prove that the
defendant's actions actually caused the plaintiff's injury. This is often referred to
as "but-for" causation. In other words, but for the defendant's actions, the
plaintiff's injury would not have occurred.
Example
The child injured by the defendant who tossed a bag of grain onto a truck could
prove this element by showing that but for the defendant's negligent act of
tossing the grain, the child would not have suffered harm.
4. Proximation of Cause
Proximate cause relates to the scope of a defendant's responsibility in a
negligence case. A defendant in a negligence case is only responsible for those
harms that the defendant could have foreseen through his or her actions. If a
defendant has caused damages that are outside of the scope of the risks that the
defendant could have foreseen, then the plaintiff cannot prove that the
defendant's actions were the proximate cause of the plaintiff's damages.
3. Example
In the example described above, the child injured by the bag of grain would prove
proximate cause by showing that the defendant could have foreseen the harm
that would have resulted from the bag striking the child. Conversely, if the harm is
something more remote to the defendant's act, then the plaintiff will be less likely
to prove this element.
5. Damages
A plaintiff in a negligence case must prove a legally recognized harm, usually in
the form of physical injury to a person or to property. It is not enough that the
defendant failed to exercise reasonable care. The failure to exercise reasonable
care must result in actual damages to a person to whom the defendant owed a
duty of care.
Specific Duties
In some instances, a statute or other law may define specific duties, such as the
duty of a person to rescue another. Professionals, such as doctors and lawyers,
are also required to uphold a standard of care expected in their profession. When
A professional fails to uphold such a standard of care, the professional may be
liable for malpractice, which is based on the Law of negligence.
4. Case Law
Donoghue v Stevenson (House of Lord’s Decision)
This case was a significant keystone in the tort of negligence. It is famed because
of Lord Atkins ‘neighbour principle' in which he sets out the framework for
determining the existence of a duty of care. To that end, negligence liability is
thus based on a core test known as the ‘neighbour principal'.
Curran v Northern Ireland co, (House of Lord’s Decision)
Lord Bridge described Ann’s as the ‘high water mark' of a trend in which a duty of
care could arise. This high water mark led to a rapid judicial retreat and a
reassertion of restrictions on new duties of care.
Murphy v Brentwood, (District Council the House of Lords)
District Council the House of Lords overruled their previous decision in Ann’s and
decided the law should develop novel categories of negligence.