The Law Of Negligence: Understanding Duty, Breach, And Causation
- IJLLR Journal
- May 1
- 2 min read
Amritha Nair, Army Institute of Law, Mohali
INTRODUCTION:
Negligence has been derived from the Latin word ‘negligentia’1. It is a failing to take the proper precautions that should be taken in comparable situations. It is a cornerstone of tort law that holds people and institutions responsible when their negligent behaviour causes injury. Winfield and Jolowicz claim that “Negligence is the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage, undesired by the defendant to the plaintiff.”2 Its function in legal systems across the world is to strike a balance between social welfare and personal accountability, protecting society from harm while avoiding placing unwarranted restrictions on daily activities. The law of negligence is grounded in the principle that individuals owe a duty to act with care toward others and that a failure to uphold this duty may lead to legal consequences if harm results. Cases of negligence include a wide range, from negligence in medicine and personal injury to ecological damage and even product-related harm.
The foundation for the present application of the notion of negligence was laid by significant judgements like Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)3, which started in English common law. The House of Lords established the "neighbour principle," which states that people should refrain from taking activities that might endanger others who are directly and intimately impacted by them, in this historic ruling. Since then, the principles of duty of care, breach of duty, and causation have become essential criteria for determining liability in negligence cases, influencing legal systems far beyond the UK.
Examining three fundamental concepts—duty of care, breach, and causation—is necessary to comprehend the law of negligence. Each component plays a distinct role in establishing liability. The duty of care decides whether the wrongdoer had a legal obligation towards the claimant, while breach analyses whether the defendant failed to meet the standard expected under this duty. Causation, in turn, demands a clear connection between the breach and the harm suffered by the claimant, verifying that the defendant’s conduct was the direct and direct cause of the destruction.
