Table of Contents

The term Negligence is derived from the Latin term ‘Negligentia’, meaning disregarded.

The tort of Negligence is one of the most significant and frequently litigated areas of tort law. It essentially addresses situations where a person suffers damage or injury due to the carelessness of another. Unlike torts that require intentional action (like Battery or Assault), Negligence focuses on a breach of a duty to take reasonable care.


Types of Negligence:

  1. Non-Feasance (Not doing act which you had to do).
  2. Mis-Feasance (Doing Act Wrongly)
  3. Mal-Feasance (Doing Wrong Act)


Essentials of Negligence:

A successful claim in negligence requires the plaintiff to prove three fundamental elements:


  1. Duty of Care: The defendant owed a legal duty to the plaintiff to exercise care.
  2. Breach of that Duty: The defendant failed to meet the required standard of care (i.e., they were "negligent").
  3. Consequent Damage: The defendant's breach directly caused foreseeable damage or loss to the plaintiff.


1. Duty of Care:


a. Donoghue V. Stevenson (1932) – In this case, M, the manufacturer had sold ginger-beer in an opaque bottle to a retail seller R. R sold it to A who gave a treat with it to a young woman P. P consumed the ginger-beer, but found in the bottle a dead snail. This seriously affected her and she became ill. She sued M, the manufacturer. In fact, there was no contractual duty of M to P, but the House of Lords, held that M was liable. Lord Atkin's judgment is a classic. He held 'You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour, who then in law is my neighbour? the answer seems to be, Persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected by my acts or omissions."


It was the duty of the manufacturer to take care that the opaque bottle did not contain noxious matter. It was held that the manufacturer was liable.


The "standard of care" as applied by the courts, is the standard of a reasonable man. The care, the skill and the diligence of the person, must be that of an ordinary prudent man under the circumstances.


b. Bolton v. Stone (1951) – In this case, D, a person who was on the roadside, was injured by a cricket-ball hit by the player from the field which was about 100 yards away from the road. There were one or two such rare occasions in the past. The court held that the defendants (the members of the club) were not liable. The hit was so exceptional that no prudent man would have foreseen. Further, it was too remote and no reasonable man would have anticipated.


2. Breach of that Duty:

The second essential condition is that there must be a breach of duty. This is judged with reference to a "reasonable man". According to Alderson J, "Negligence is (i) the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do, (guided by the circumstances on hand) or (ii) doing something which a prudent man would not do". This is the objective standard of a reasonable man. It is the application of "foresee-ability test" i.e. whether a reasonable man would have foreseen.


  1. Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works Co. (1856) – In this case, a water company installed water mains, including fireplugs. An unusually severe frost caused a fireplug near the claimant's house to burst, leading to flooding and damage. The court held that the water company was not negligent because they were only required to guard against risks that a reasonable person would foresee. The extreme frost was an event that no ordinary person could have reasonably anticipated. This case establishes the objective standard against which a defendant's conduct is measured.  


  1. Roe v. Minister of Health (1954) –  In 1947. Dr. G. gave to R a spinal anesthetic to conduct an operation. The anesthetic which was in a ampoule, had been stored in phenol as usual. But due to an "invisible crack" in the ampoule, phenol had entered and in consequence, the patient R became paralysed. Dr. G had taken all care as a prudent surgeon would have taken and he was not aware of the crack in the ampoule. Held, Dr. G was not liable. The medical literature on the subject was consulted as the set standard and Dr. G was held not negligent.


3. Consequent Damage:

There must be the injury to the plaintiff as a direct consequence of the negligence of the defendant. It must not be too remote.


  1. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No. 1)) [1961] – In this case, the defendant's ship, The Wagon Mound, negligently spilled furnace oil into Sydney Harbour. The oil drifted to a nearby wharf where the claimant was carrying out welding work. Sparks from the welding ignited debris floating on the oil, which then set the oil and the wharf on fire, causing significant damage. The court found that while oil pollution was foreseeable, damage by fire was not reasonably foreseeable at the time (based on expert evidence). The defendants were therefore not liable for the fire damage. This ruling overturned the older "direct consequences" test, establishing foreseeability as the test for remoteness of damage.


Res Ipsa Loquitur


Res ipsa loquitur is a legal doctrine in tort law that means "the thing speaks for itself" and allows a plaintiff to establish a presumption of negligence without direct proof. It applies when the accident itself implies negligence, and the three key conditions are: the event would not have occurred without negligence, the defendant had exclusive control over the cause of the event, and the plaintiff was not at fault. This doctrine shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to show they were not negligent.