In this article you will learn about the Essentials of Negligence in Tort.
Essentials of Negligence
The plaintiff in a negligence act must establish the following essentials :
Duty of care - The defendant must owe a legal duty of care towards the plaintiff. In the case of Stansbie vs Troman (1948), A decorator was told to decorate a house. The decorator carelessly left the house unlocked and without informing anyone. In his absence someone broke into the house and stole some property whose value the owner of the house claimed from the decorator. It was held that the decorator was liable as he was negligent in leaving the house unlocked and failed his duty of care.
Duty must be towards Plaintiff - It is not sufficient for the defendant to have claimed a duty of care to the plaintiff; It is not enough for the defendant to have claimed a duty of care to the plaintiff; the court will typically decide whether or not this is proven. The court will decide whether or not this is proven. In the case of Bourhill v. Young (1943), a fisherman's wife used to catch fish and carried in a basket near the highway. While she was being helped in putting her basket on her back, a motor-cyclist collided with a motor car at a distance of 15 yards. She heard that the accident had occurred before reaching her destination. She was 8 months pregnant. By seeing the blood on the road she suffered a nervous shock and fell down affecting the still-born child. It was held that the deceased had no duty of care towards the plaintiff and therefore she could not claim any damages.
Breach of Duty - Breach of duty to take care occurs when a person who is obligated to exercise reasonable care fails to do so in fulfilling that duty. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti (1966), an old clock tower situated in the middle of a crowded area of Chandni Chowk suddenly collapsed and A large number of people were killed. The clock tower was 80 years old although the expected life span of the clock tower should have been 40-45 years. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi was in charge of the clock tower and they had a duty of care towards the citizens. By ignoring to repair the clock tower, They were held liable as they had breached their duty of care toward the public by failing to repair the clock tower.
Proximate cause - It means “legal cause,” or the cause that the law recognizes as the primary cause of the injury. It relates to the scope of a defendant's responsibility in a negligence case. A defendant in a negligence case is only liable for those harms that the defendant could have reasonably foreseen through their actions. If the 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.
Damages - The plaintiff must suffer actual harm or damage as a result of the breach. The harm may fall into the following categories:-
- Bodily harm
- Harm to the reputation
- Harm to property
- Financial Loss
- Mental Harm.
When such damage is proved, the defendant is bound to compensate the plaintiff for the damages occurred.
This article on Essentials of Negligence in Tort is contributed by Dipshikha Anand. If you like LawStudyPoint.com do follow us on our Twitter handle.