Definition
Failure to exercise the standard of care a reasonable person would exercise.
A tort consisting of breach of a duty of care owed to the plaintiff, causing damage — the three elements are duty, breach, and resulting damage.
Statutory Definition
No specific statutory provision — established under common law applied by Indian courts; Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for professional negligence.
Etymology & Origin
From Latin 'negligentia' (carelessness, neglect — from 'neglegere', to disregard, not care for — 'nec', not, and 'legere', to pick up, gather, heed). 'Negligence' is literally the act of not picking up or not heeding — failing to pay attention where attention is legally required. The same root gives 'neglect' (not picking up) and 'diligence' (its opposite — careful attention).
Full Legal Analysis
Negligence is the most important and widely litigated tort in modern law. A defendant is liable in negligence when three elements are established: (1) Duty of care — the defendant owed a legal duty of care to the plaintiff; (2) Breach of duty — the defendant failed to meet the standard of care required by that duty; and (3) Resulting damage — the plaintiff suffered actual damage as a consequence of the breach. All three elements must be proved — the absence of any element defeats the negligence claim.
Duty of care: Lord Atkin's 'neighbour principle' in Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] establishes that a duty of care arises when the defendant could reasonably foresee that their act or omission would injure the plaintiff. In India, the duty of care has been extended by the Supreme Court to: road users (drivers owe a duty to pedestrians); doctors and hospitals (duty of care to patients); employers (duty to employees to provide a safe system of work); local authorities (duty regarding public infrastructure); and the state (duty to protect citizens' right to life under Article 21).
The Supreme Court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur ('the thing speaks for itself') — where the occurrence of an accident itself raises a presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant, shifting the evidential burden to the defendant to explain why they were not negligent. In this case, a clock tower maintained by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi collapsed and caused deaths. The Supreme Court held that the collapse of a structure ordinarily maintained by the defendant is sufficient evidence of negligence — the defendant must show the collapse was not due to their negligence. This case established res ipsa loquitur as part of Indian negligence law.
Standard of care: the benchmark is the 'reasonable man' (or 'reasonable person') standard — what would a reasonable person of ordinary prudence do in the defendant's position? For professionals (doctors, lawyers, engineers), the standard is higher — what would a reasonably competent professional of that class do? A surgeon is judged against the standard of a reasonably competent surgeon, not a layperson. A road user is judged against the standard of a reasonably careful driver.
Contributory negligence: where the plaintiff also failed to take reasonable care for their own safety, the damages may be apportioned between the plaintiff and defendant under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act principles applied in India. The Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas (1994) established guidelines for computing compensation in motor accident cases — the multiplicand (annual income) × multiplier (based on age) formula.
For advocates, negligence cases arise in: (1) motor accident claims before the MACT; (2) medical negligence consumer complaints (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission); (3) professional negligence suits against lawyers, accountants, and engineers; (4) workplace accidents — employer's negligence claims under the Employees Compensation Act and Factories Act; and (5) product liability — negligence in the manufacture or design of defective products.
This Term in Indian Statutes
Consumer Protection Act, 2019, 2019
"'Product liability' means the responsibility of a product manufacturer or product seller, of any product or service, to compensate for any harm caused to a consumer by such defective product manufactured or sold or by deficiency in services relating to such product."
Donoghue v. Stevenson: duty of care foundation; Subhagwanti: res ipsa loquitur; Jacob Mathew: gross negligence for criminal liability (BNS Section 106); Bolam test medical negligence; VP Shantha: medical services under Consumer Protection Act
