Home . Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic works. Comprehensive analysis of negligence under Indian Tort Law

Comprehensive analysis of negligence under Indian Tort Law

Anshi Mudgal

April 23, 2025

256

Comprehensive analysis of negligence under Indian Tort Law — Image Source - https://shorturl.at/57TWk

This article is written by Paras Batra pursuing Diploma in Advanced Contract Drafting, Negotiation and Dispute Resolution from LawSikho.

This article is published by Anshi Mudgal.

Table of Contents

Introduction

The Law of Torts in India, uncodified and developed through judicial precedents, centres on negligence, a key tort involving a breach of legal duty that causes harm. Derived from the Latin “negligentia,” meaning carelessness, negligence in everyday terms suggests being careless, but legally means failing to exercise the care a reasonable person would in similar situations. It is fundamental to civil litigation in India, covering cases from personal injuries to environmental harm.

Negligence takes a predominant place in civil law cases in India, and this involves an entire gamut of cases from medical malpractice and personal injury to ecological degradation. As defined by great jurist Winfield, negligence is “the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage, undesired by the defendant, to the plaintiff.” This was further clarified in the leading English case Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856), where negligence was defined as the failure to do something which a reasonable person would do, or doing something which a reasonable person would not do.

Negligence law not only makes redressal possible but also acts as a tool for enforcing accountability. It is aligned with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which gives the guarantee of the right to life and liberty of the person. By giving victims a legal recourse for seeking compensation for loss caused by another’s negligence, the doctrine of negligence provides justice and reinforces the rule of law. In addition, the law of negligence has a preventive component.

It forces people, professionals, and industries to obey laid-down standards of care and thus minimise risks as well as encourage society to be watchful. It therefore performs both compensatory as well as corrective roles, providing redress to offended parties while also discouraging future cases of negligence.

In this blog, we will explore all the nuances related to negligence, including its key aspects, historical development and its practical application in India.

Concept and Evolution of Negligence in Indian Tort Law

The Indian concept of negligence did not develop in a vacuum. It’s the result of colonial legal tradition, local adaptations, and contemporary judicial imagination.

Colonial Foundations (Pre-Independence)

British common law brought tort law, such as negligence, into the colonies during colonial times. English jurisprudence, like Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932), which established the neighbour principle (“you must take reasonable care to avoid acts which can foreseeably injure those closely concerned”), provided the precedent. British-controlled Indian courts followed these principles, though application was limited because there was no codified tort law and a focus on criminal and property cases.

Post-Independence Adaptation

Post 1947, India converted its common law to suit the local requirements. With industrialisation and urbanisation, negligence acquired prominence with rising risks such as accidents on roads and workplace accidents. In the lack of a codal tort statute, courts fell back on the judicial precedent and applied negligence on new facts through a flexible outlook.

Judicial Expansion and Statutory Integration

The Judiciary was the leading force behind negligence development. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), after Bhopal, the Supreme Court established “absolute liability” for hazardous industries, a more stringent derivative of negligence that avoided common defences. It was a step towards protecting public interest in cases of mass harm.

Legislation like the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (amended in 2019), included negligence in consumer rights, as in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (1995), where medical professionals became liable for poor services. Such amendments broadened the ambit of negligence to professional and commercial contexts.

Modern Context and Challenges:

Indian negligence now includes international elements like environmental torts or product liability, and managing local constraints. Cases such as Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) clarified medical negligence, separating real errors from gross lapses, demonstrating continuous refinement. The development of technology and infrastructure opens up new ground for negligence law.

Essential Elements of Negligence

For negligence of tort, the plaintiff has to prove the following-

Duty of care

The defendant owed a legal duty of care towards the plaintiff, which arises either from the relationship between the parties or the foreseeability of harm resulting from the defendant’s conduct.

Breach of duty

In it, the defendant breached that duty by failing to act as a reasonable person would under similar circumstances. It can include acts of omission or commission.

Causation and damages

As a direct and proximate result of the defendant’s breach, the plaintiff suffered actual harm or injury. The damages must be quantifiable and not merely speculative.

Once all of these are proved, then a case of negligence is maintainable.

Duty of care to the plaintiff

The central component of the tort of negligence is the “duty of care”. The defendant’s duty must be to the plaintiff, and it will be a legal duty. It represents a legal obligation imposed upon an individual or organisation to act or refrain from acting in a way that avoids causing foreseeable harm to others. It establishes a relationship in which one is legally required to take reasonable care to protect another against harm or injury. Determining whether this duty exists is vital; without such, a claim for negligence will never proceed.

Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) broadened the ambit of duty, that duty reaches to your neighbour. Describing what a neighbour is, Lord Atkin elucidated that it encompasses “the persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question”.

Negligence liability occurs only if the injury is foreseeable. The defendant owes a duty to the plaintiff if he can foresee the consequences.

Breach of duty of care

After ensuring that there existed a legal duty of the defendant to the plaintiff, the second key thing is to ascertain that there has been a violation of such legal duty. The plaintiff needs to establish that the defendant was in breach of duty to care, or that he neglected doing so.

There are several factors by which a breach is evaluated:

Standard of care

For an average individual, the standard of care refers to what a prudent and reasonable individual will do in a specific situation. For individuals who have specialised knowledge in their line of work, the standard is the practices accepted in their industry. In Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that a doctor is only liable for medical negligence when he is not adopting the procedure that a reasonable doctor will adopt in similar circumstances, i.e., the standard procedure.

Foreseeability

The harm that took place shall be one that could be easily anticipated or foreseen. If the harm is such that one cannot foresee it, then the individual is not held responsible.

Evidence of breach

There must be proof of a violation. The plaintiff has to establish that the defendant had strayed from the norms. It needs to be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence forming a chain.

Damages to the plaintiff

The final essential element of the tort of negligence is that the defendant’s breach of duty must have caused harm or damage to the plaintiff. The harm may be physical harm or harm to reputation or property. The claimant has to establish that the damage was a proximate consequence of the breach on the part of the defendant. It is also referred to as the “but for” test, a legal rule applied to ascertain actual causation by inquiring whether the damage would have happened but for the act of the defendant.

Types of Negligence

There are various types of negligence, which are as follows-

Contributory Negligence

Under this, both parties contribute to causing the negligence. It means in this type of negligence, the plaintiff as well as the defendant together are liable for the harm caused, though in different proportions.

Composite Negligence

Composite negligence occurs when the negligence of two or more defendants (not the plaintiff) jointly causes harm to the plaintiff. In it, the plaintiff is not at fault. He is the innocent party who has suffered a loss due to the joint fault of the defendants. For example, two speeding cars caused damage to the bystander. In case of Composite liability, courts decide liability among defendants based on their degree of fault.

Professional Negligence

This occurs when a professional fails to provide the level of care that is expected of them in their line of work due to their level of competence and expertise. In India, people come to professionals in any field so that they can get good results. They rely on the skills of professionals for their work. So, if a professional fails to meet that level of care, professional negligence takes place.

Vicarious Liability for Negligence

This occurs when one party is held liable for the acts committed by the other party due to the legal relationship between them. It holds an employer liable for the negligent acts committed by the employee during their employment. Vicarious liability is based on the idea that the person who will benefit from another’s action should also be at risk of suffering harm as a result of that action.

Defences against negligence claims

Negligence occurs when a person owes a duty of care, breaches that duty, and causes foreseeable harm to another. However, there are certain defences which the defendant can raise, which are as follows-

Volenti Non Fit Injuria

This Latin maxim means “to a willing person, no injury is done.” If the plaintiff has voluntarily consented to the risk, then afterwards, if he suffers any injury then he cannot claim damages. The defendant in that case cannot be held liable for negligence. But this defence does not apply if the defendant’s conduct goes beyond the scope of consent.

Inevitable accident

If there is any unforeseen event that cannot be protected even after using reasonable skill and precaution, then the defendant is absolved from liability. The defendant escapes from liability only when the harm is unavoidable despite taking the precautions.

Act of God

If due to any natural calamity, say flood, earthquake, etc, harm is caused which was unpredictable and there was no involvement of human agency, then this defence is available and the person cannot be held liable for negligence. But if this defence fails, if the defendant fails to foresee mitigable risks.

Statutory authority

If any negligence arises as a result of the act performed by a person to whom this power was delegated by a statute, and the individual had performed their act in the course of their authority, then such an individual cannot be held liable. The fire in Vaughan v. Taff Vale Railway Co. (1860) was caused by sparks from a railway engine. However, because the railway company had taken reasonable precautions and complied with legal requirements, it was not at fault.

Conclusion

Negligence under Indian tort law serves as a cornerstone in upholding civil responsibility and protecting individual rights. Evolving from British common law, it has adapted to India’s socio-legal landscape through landmark judgments and legislative support. By holding individuals and institutions accountable for careless conduct, it ensures both compensation for victims and deterrence against future harm. With its applicability ranging from medical negligence to environmental damage, the doctrine continues to evolve, embracing modern challenges while reinforcing the values of justice and due care. Ultimately, it underscores the legal and moral obligation to act responsibly in a civilised society.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQS)

What are the main defences available in negligence cases?

Defendants may assert a variety of defences in negligence cases. Volenti Non Fit Injuria applies when the plaintiff knowingly consents to the risk of injury. Depending on the plaintiff’s percentage of fault, contributory negligence reduces the defendant’s liability. Unavoidable natural events are covered by an Act of God, which absolves the defendant. Even with reasonable caution, an inevitable accident cannot be prevented. Last but not least, Statutory Authority defends legal actions as long as they stay within the bounds of the law.

What is the liability of employers for employees’ negligent acts?

In the employer-employee relationship, the employer’s liability is of a vicarious type. He is liable vicariously for those acts which his employee commits in the course of his business.

What is the ‘duty of care’ in negligence cases?

When there is negligence, one must be just as cautious as one would normally be in the same circumstance.

References

Serato DJ Crack 2025 Serato DJ PRO Crack

Comprehensive analysis of negligence under Indian Tort Law

Introduction