Skip to main content

Negligence in Indian Law

                    Negligence in Indian law

As we all know, that negligence is of two types that is criminal negligence and civil negligence. Criminal negligence is when the person acts in a manner which is very extreme in nature that a reasonable person can neither think or apprehend like that but Civil negligence is when the person even fails to act like a reasonable person or scope of that. It fails to exercise even if its ordinary care or due diligence. In this article, we are going to understand the concept of civil negligence and its significance in the law of torts (India).

For the tort of negligence, there are some essentials which should be present. They are:

  1. Duty of care- One of the important requirements for the tort of negligence is that there should be a duty of care which one person, that is defendant in the legal suit, owes to the another person, plaintiff. There are many duties which a person have towards the another individual like moral, legal, ethical, religious and so on but the duty which is talked here is a legal duty. Also, it cannot be illegal or unlawful in nature.

For example: A was a peon in the chamber of Mr. B. His daily duty was to lock all the doors and windows after the chamber was closed. Once, A went to the shop and drank liquor which took a toll on him. After that he was having a unconscious mind. In that process, he forgot to lock the doors and windows and the next day it was discovered that theft occurred. In this regard, A was liable because there was a duty of care which was not performed.

  1. The duty must be towards the plaintiff- For a case of negligence to be maintainable in the court, it is important that there is a relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant which required the defendant to act in a certain way towards the plaintiff but defendant didn’t react like that. In plain words, the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.

  2. Breach of Duty to take care- For a suit to be maintainable, it is important to establish that breach of duty has taken place. It is not enough to only establish that there existed a duty of care. The defendant did not omit or commit something which resulted in the breach of his duty. In plain words, it constitutes the non-observance of a standard of care.

  3. Actual cause or cause in fact- Here, the plaintiff who is filing complaint should prove that the damages incurred by him is a direct cause of the defendant violation  of duty. It is also known as ‘but-for’ cause  which means but for the defendant’s actions, the plaintiff would not have incurred damages.

  4. Proximate cause- It means the cause which is legally recognized. It recognizes the actions which produced consequences which is easily foreseeable without intervention from anyone else.

Therefore, there are defenses also which are available to the plaintiff like contributory negligence by the plaintiff, an act of god and inevitable accident. So, in order to prove the tort of negligence, it is important to prove all the essential requirements without which the suit is not maintainable in the court of law.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more