UNIT-3

TORT OF NEGLIGENCE

Adv. Akanchya Regmi

NEGLIGENCE
 The term negligence originates from the Latin word “negligentia,” meaning
"failure to pick up." In everyday language, negligence refers to carelessness.
 Negligence occurs when a person’s actions fall below the standard of care
expected of a "reasonable person" under similar circumstances. This standard
serves as a benchmark to determine whether a person’s behaviour is
appropriate in a given situation. It may arise not only from an act but also from
a failure to act when there is a legal duty to do so.
 Traditionally, negligence claims often required a pre-existing contractual
relationship between the parties, such as between a doctor and patient,
employer and employee, or bank and customer.
 However, modern legal developments have expanded the scope of negligence
to include situations where no explicit or implied contract exists.
FORMS OF NEGLIGENCE
1. Nonfeasance: The failure to perform a duty or obligation that a person
must legally fulfil. Example: Failing to carry out necessary repairs on an
aging building, despite being obligated to do so.
2. Misfeasance: The improper or negligent performance of a lawful act,
resulting in harm or risk. Example: Using substandard materials to repair
an ageing building, thereby creating a significant risk of collapse and
potential harm.
3. Malfeasance: The intentional commission of an unlawful or wrongful
act that should not have been undertaken at all. Example: Using
prohibited and combustible materials for repairs on an ageing building,
creating a fire hazard and causing an accident.
 A owns a horse known to be aggressive. While A is on vacation, they
ask their neighbour B to take care of the horse. B fails to secure the
horse properly, and it escapes, trampling a pedestrian and causing
severe injuries. Is A liable for negligence?
A. Yes
B. No
DEFINITIONS OF NEGLIGENCE
 Negligence as a state of mind: (Austin, Salmond, and Winfield)
 Negligence can be viewed as a mental state that contributes to the
commission of other torts, such as negligent trespass, nuisance, or
defamation.
 According to Winfield and Jolowicz, “Negligence is the breach of a legal
duty to take care which results in damage, undesired by the defendant,
to the plaintiff.”
 This perspective emphasizes the internal disregard for a duty of care,
which ultimately results in harm
 Negligence as a conduct:
 This approach views negligence as specific actions, or failures to act, that fall
below the standard of care expected in a given situation.
 It doesn’t focus on what the person was thinking but rather on what they did or
failed to do.
 Lord Wright emphasizes that negligence involves a "duty, breach, and resulting
damage" to someone who was owed that duty.
 Similarly, Clark and Lindsell argue that negligence is not about someone's state
of mind but about their failure to act as a reasonable person would in the
circumstances.
 For example, if a person fails to repair a dangerous staircase despite knowing
about the risk, their conduct, not their thoughts, is what constitutes negligence.
 ELEMENTS OF NEGLIGENCE
 To establish the liability of the defendant in a negligence action, the plaintiff
must prove the following essentials:
1. Duty of care: The defendant should owe a duty of care towards the plaintiff.
2. Breach of duty: The defendant must have breached the duty of care by acting
or failing to act in a certain way.
3. Causation (Remoteness of Damage): There must be a direct link between the
defendant's breach of duty and the plaintiff's injuries. (To what extent were
the defendant's actions the direct cause of the damage?)
4. Damages: The plaintiff must suffer actual harm or damage resulting from the
breach.
1. DUTY OF CARE
 Duty of Care refers to a legal obligation to avoid causing harm to others. It is
a fundamental component of a negligence claim, and establishing it is the
most important.
 Certain relationships inherently assume a duty of care due to their nature.
These include: Teacher and student, Doctor and patient, Employer and
employee. In these cases, the law presumes a duty of care exists without
needing further proof.
 In other situations, a duty of care may arise due to the specific nature of the
relationship, even if it is not presumed. For instance: When one party
exercises substantial control over another or When one party relies on the
actions of another. Here, the party with greater control must act reasonably
to prevent harm to the reliant party.
DONOGHUE V STEVENSON(1932)
 In 1928, Donoghue’s friend purchased a bottle of ginger beer for her at a
café in Paisley. The ginger beer was in an opaque bottle, so its contents were
not visible. After drinking part of it, Donoghue poured out the remainder
and discovered the decomposed remains of a snail in the bottle. This caused
her physical illness (gastroenteritis) and a shock.
 Since Donoghue did not buy the bottle herself, she could not sue for breach
of contract, as she was not part of the purchase agreement. Instead, she
sued the manufacturer, Stevenson, claiming he owed her a duty of care as
the ultimate consumer of his product.
 The main issue was whether a manufacturer owes a duty of care to a
consumer when there is no direct contract between them.
 At the time, negligence law was limited, requiring a contractual
relationship unless:
1. The product was inherently dangerous, or
2. The manufacturer concealed a defect they knew was dangerous.
 The case was a test to see if negligence could be recognized as a
separate legal claim outside contractual relationships.
 The House of Lords ruled in Donoghue's favor in a landmark 3-2 decision.
 The key judgment by Lord Atkin introduced the “neighbour principle”, which expanded
the law of negligence:
i. A duty of care exists when it is reasonably foreseeable that one’s actions (or omissions)
could harm others who are closely and directly affected.
ii. Negligence became recognized as an independent tort, separate from
contractual obligations.
iii. Manufacturers were held to owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumers of
their products.
 This case is most notable for Lord Atkin’s statement: “You must take reasonable care
to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would likely injure your
neighbour. Your neighbour is anyone closely and directly affected by your actions.”
THE ANNS TEST (TWO-STAGE TEST)
 In the 1970s, Lord Atkin’s Neighbor Principle from Donoghue v. Stevenson faced
criticism for its broad scope and lack of clear justification in some cases. One
critique came from Lord Reid in the case of Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd.
1970, where presented unique circumstances that required flexibility rather
than rigid rules. The primary reasons include;
1. Supervisory Role: The officers had a special duty to control the boys, making
harm to third parties foreseeable.
2. Foreseeability: The damage to the yacht was a direct and predictable result of
the officers’ negligence.
3. Public Policy: The courts had to balance individual protection with the
potential impact on public authority functions.
ANNS TWO-TEST
 Lord Reid's suggestion was considered by the House of Lords in Anns v
Merton London Borough Council (1978).
 The Anns test, also known as the two-stage test, is a landmark decision in
English tort law that established a broad test for determining the existence
of a duty of care in negligence.
 Here, the plaintiffs were tenants in a block of flats. The flats suffered from
structural defects due to inadequate foundations which were 2ft 6in deep
instead of 3ft deep as required. The defendant Council was responsible for
inspecting the foundations during the construction of the flats. The House of
Lords held that the defendant owed a duty of care to ensure the foundations
were of the correct depth.
 Lord Wilberforce proposed a new approach to determine whether a
duty of care exists. The two-stage test involves:
1. Proximity and Foreseeability: Is there a sufficient relationship of
proximity or closeness between the alleged wrongdoer and the injured
party, such that it would be reasonably foreseeable to the wrongdoer
that their carelessness might cause harm to the other person?
2. Policy Considerations: If the first question is answered affirmatively,
are there any factors that should negate, limit, or restrict the scope of
the duty, the class of persons to whom it is owed, or the extent of
damages resulting from its breach?
CAPARO TEST (THREE-STAGE TEST)
 The Anns test was later criticized for being too broad and was eventually
overruled by the Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990) 2 AC 605 three-
stage test
 In this case, Caparo Industries, a company, purchased shares in Fidelity Plc,
relying on the company’s annual accounts prepared by the auditors, Touche
Ross. The accounts showed a profit, but in reality, Fidelity had suffered a
substantial loss. Caparo later took over Fidelity and discovered the
inaccuracies in the accounts.
 Caparo sued the auditors, claiming they owed a duty of care to shareholders
and potential investors to ensure the accounts were accurate.
 The House of Lords expressed dissatisfaction with the determination of
the duty of care under the Anns Test.
 Instead, they introduced a three-stage test known as the "Caparo Test”
and ultimately held that the auditors did not owe a duty of care to
potential investors like Caparo, as there was no sufficient relationship of
proximity, and it would not be fair, just, or reasonable to impose such a
duty on auditors to an indeterminate class of people.
 The Caparo test, established in Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman (1990),
refined the criteria for determining duty of care in negligence cases by
introducing a more structured and restrictive approach.
 The test comprises three elements:
1. Foreseeability: The harm to the claimant must be a reasonably foreseeable
consequence of the defendant's actions.
2. Proximity: There must be a sufficiently close relationship (proximity) between
the claimant and the defendant, either in terms of physical closeness, causal
connection, or a special relationship.
3. Fair, Just, and Reasonable: It must be fair, just, and reasonable to impose a
duty of care on the defendant in the circumstances, considering public policy
and the potential consequences of imposing liability.
 This test replaced the broader Anns two-stage test, focusing on greater
judicial discretion and stricter limits on the extension of liability to ensure
balanced outcomes in negligence claims.
TESTS OF DUTY OF CARE
1. Foreseeability: For negligence to apply, the defendant must have
reasonably anticipated the risk of harm to the plaintiff at the time of the
negligent act. In Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162
N.E. 99 (1928), railway employees' negligence led to a passenger dropping
a box of fireworks while boarding a moving train. The fireworks exploded,
causing heavy metal scales to fall several feet away and strike the plaintiff.
The court dismissed her claim for damages, ruling that even if negligence
had occurred, the plaintiff was not a foreseeable victim of the railway
company’s actions.
2. Proximity: Establishing a duty of care requires identifying legal proximity, not
just factual proximity. In cases involving the police, proximity is particularly
significant, as established in Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, 1988.

The plaintiff, whose daughter was murdered by the Yorkshire Ripper, sued the
police for failing to apprehend the killer earlier. The court ruled that the police
do not owe a duty of care to individual members of the public in the detection
or prevention of crime. The claim was dismissed, as the police were
performing a general public function and not acting with a specific duty
toward the victim.

The case established that public authorities like the police are not liable for
negligence in crime detection affecting identifiable individuals.
3. Fair, Just, and Reasonable: The third element is fairness, justice, and
reasonableness, which means that no duty of care can be recognized if it does
not meet the criteria of being fair, just, and reasonable.

This principle was demonstrated in Marc Rich & Co v. Bishop Rock Marine Co
Ltd (1996), where a ship sank after temporary repairs were made to a hull
crack. The cargo owner recovered most of the loss from the ship owner but
sought further compensation from the classification society.

The court ruled that it would be unfair to hold the classification society liable to
the cargo owner. The society's role was generally for the collective welfare, and
its actions were not intended to create liability toward individual claimants,
especially in light of limitation provisions that applied to its responsibilities.
2. BREACH OF DUTY
 Establishing that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff is not
sufficient; it is also necessary to demonstrate that the defendant breached
this duty.
 In cases where a duty of reasonable care is owed, a breach occurs when
the defendant fails to exercise the standard of care expected from a
reasonable person.
 A breach arises when the defendant’s actions or omissions fall short of
this expected conduct. Specifically, a breach of the duty of reasonable care
involves actions that are deemed unreasonable under the circumstances.
 The applicable test in this context is the Reasonable Man Test, which
evaluates the behavior expected of a hypothetical reasonable person
placed in similar circumstances to the defendant.
 In Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856), breach was defined as
either failing to do something that a reasonable person would do or
doing something that a prudent or reasonable person would not do.
 This case established that the key question is whether a reasonable
person, under similar circumstances, would have acted in the same
manner as the defendant.
 BLYTH V. BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS CO.
(1856)
 The defendants had installed water mains with hydrants along the street,
one of which developed a leak due to extremely cold temperatures, causing
water damage to the plaintiff’s house. The plaintiff sued for negligence.
 The plaintiff sought damages for water damage caused by a leak in a water
plug installed 25 years prior. The leak occurred due to an unusually cold
winter. There had been no prior issues with the plug, and the defendants
had taken precautions against cold weather. The jury ruled in favour of the
plaintiff.
 The issue was whether the jury was correct in considering the defendants'
liability for negligence, given the circumstances and evidence.
 No. The court ruled in favor of the defendants. No evidence showed
negligence, as the defendants had taken precautions, and the damage
resulted from an unforeseeably cold winter, which was considered an
accident, not negligence.
 Negligence occurs when a person fails to do something a reasonable person
would do, or takes an action a reasonable person would not take. A mere
accident, not caused by such failures or actions, does not qualify as
negligence.
 The court emphasized that being injured by another’s property does not
automatically imply negligence. Negligence only arises when someone fails
to act, or acts, in a way that a reasonable person would not, thus leading to
liability.
STANDARD OF CARE
 When one party owes a duty of care to another, it is essential to determine
the scope of that duty, and how far it extends. This is referred to as the
“Standard Of Care.”
 The standard of care generally requires a person to act as a 'reasonable
person' would under similar circumstances to minimize the risk of harm.
Failure to meet this standard constitutes a breach of the duty of care.
 In Glasgow Corporation v Muir (1943), the court considered whether the
defendant should have foreseen harm while carrying a large container of hot
tea. It held that hot tea is not inherently dangerous and found the defendant
had acted reasonably, meeting the required standard of care. Therefore, the
plaintiff's claim was dismissed as the defendant did not fall below the
necessary level of precaution.
 In contrast, in Haley v London Electricity Board (1965), the defendants
dug a hole in a pavement but failed to secure the area adequately, leaving
only an upright shovel as a warning. A blind claimant, unable to see the
warning, fell into the hole and was injured.
 The key question was whether the defendants breached their duty of
care, given their claim that sufficient precautions were taken for normally-
sighted pedestrians and that it was unforeseeable a blind person would
encounter the area without assistance.
 The court held the defendants in breach of their duty of care. It ruled that
harm to a blind person was foreseeable and that reasonable precautions
should extend to protecting disabled individuals, not just able-bodied
pedestrians.
Standard of care
 In most cases, a reasonable person standard applies, and the plaintiff must show a reasonable person would
have been more careful than the defendant was.
 In some claims, such as a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff must show the defendant was more
careless than a similarly trained professional would’ve been.
 Bolam Test:
 A professional is held to the reasonable standard of their fellow professionals. For example, a doctor or an
accountant would be held to the reasonable standard of doctors or accountants and what is widely
accepted as competent professional practice within those fields.
 Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee 1957 (Mr. Bolam claimed negligence in receiving Electro
Convulsive Therapy (ECT) due to lack of muscle relaxation, no restraint, and no warning about potential risks.)
 The Bolam case did not succeed because it was determined that the doctor adhered to the medical
protocol of that period. Consequently, the Bolam Test was introduced to assess instances of medical
negligence.
 The Test evaluated whether medical professionals’ actions align with those of their peers in the same
position, taking into account the varying standard practices in the medical field, which may depend on the
professional’s level of experience.
Standard of care
 In Bolitho vs Hackney Health Authority 1977 (A child was brought to a hospital suffering from breathing
abnormalities. The doctor summoned to deal with the matter never received the summons due to a low battery on
her bleep. The child died as a result. The child’s mother sued for negligence, arguing that the child should have been
seen and intubated.)Lord Browne-Wilkinson held that; Both the claimant’s and the defendant’s evidence was useful.
 This case was used to amend the rules around the Bolam Test, with the explanation being, “In cases of diagnosis and
treatment there are cases where, despite a body of professional opinion sanctioning the defendant’s conduct, the
defendant can properly be held liable for negligence. In most situations, the consensus among respected experts in
a field is considered reasonable. However, if it can be shown that a professional opinion cannot withstand logical
analysis, a judge may conclude that the opinion is not reasonable or responsible, even if held by experts.
 Chester vs Afshar (2004) and Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (2015) helped to refine the law regarding the
failure to warn patients of potential risks to certain procedures. It was argued that the doctors’ withholding of
information meant that the patient was unable to make an informed decision about the procedure that they were due
to have.
 Negligence Per Se: The term negligence per se translates to negligence in and of itself. It is a doctrine that establishes
a defendant's negligence based on the violation of a statute or regulation.
 If a person violates a law, and that violation leads to harm, the court may find negligence without further
consideration of whether the person acted reasonably under the circumstances.
Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur
 The phrase res ipsa loquitur means the thing speaks for itself. Where the maxim applies, the court will be prepared to
infer that the defendant was negligent without hearing detailed evidence from the claimant as to what the defendant did
or did not do.
 In extraordinary cases, the facts may be so overwhelmingly in favor of the plaintiff that the court decides the defendant
should prove that they were not negligent.
 For "res ipsa loquitur" to apply, three conditions are generally required:
i. The event or injury would not have occurred in the absence of negligence.
ii. The instrumentality or object causing the harm was under the defendant's exclusive control.
iii. The plaintiff did not contribute to the negligence that led to the injury.
 By meeting these conditions, the plaintiff can present a prima facie case of negligence, and the burden shifts to the
defendant to provide evidence to the contrary or explain why the incident happened.
 Res ipsa loquitur is commonly applied in cases involving medical malpractice, product liability, and accidents involving
common carriers such as airplanes or buses. For example, if a patient wakes up from surgery with a surgical instrument
left inside their body, res ipsa loquitur may be invoked to establish a presumption of negligence against the surgeon or
medical staff.
 In Mahon v Osborne (1939), a surgeon had to prove it was not negligent to leave a swab inside a patient.
 Similarly, in Scott v London and St Katherine’s Dock Co (1865), where the claimant was standing near the door of the
defendant’s warehouse when some bags of sugar fell on him. (Bags of sugar do not normally fall out of the sky unless
someone has been negligent.)
3. Causation (principle of Remoteness)

 Establishing causation is crucial in proving negligence, necessitating a clear link between the
damage incurred and the negligent act.
 In tort law, the concept of the remoteness of damage dictates that a defendant is liable only for
harm foreseeable at the time of the wrongdoing. If the harm suffered by the plaintiff is deemed
too remote or unforeseeable, the defendant cannot be held responsible.
 This principle helps to ensure that tort law does not impose unreasonable or unfair burdens on
defendants and is based on the idea that individuals should only be responsible for the
reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions.
 The concept of remoteness of damage is an important element of the law of torts because it
establishes a causal connection between the defendant’s actions and the plaintiff’s harm, and
limits the extent to which a defendant can be held responsible for harm suffered by the plaintiff.
Tests to Determine Remoteness of Damage
1. “But For” Test:
 The "but for" test assesses whether the damage would have occurred had the defendant not acted
negligently. If the defendant's conduct is the cause in-fact of the plaintiff's harm, the first stage is satisfied.
 This test poses the question: "But for the defendant's breach of duty, would the plaintiff have suffered the
damage?" If the answer is "yes," no causal link is considered established. Whereas, if the answer is "no," a
causal link is established.
 As outlined in the case Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee, where the
plaintiff's husband, a security guard, drank tea and experienced vomiting. When taken to the hospital, the
doctor refused treatment, and the husband later died of arsenic poisoning. Despite the doctor's breach of
duty, the court held that the husband would have died regardless, leading to the dismissal of the
negligence claim due to the inevitability of the death.
 However, the “but for” test alone is not sufficient to establish liability, as it may lead to absurd or unfair
results. For example, if a negligent driver causes a minor scratch on the plaintiff’s car, and the plaintiff
subsequently crashes the car while driving to the repair shop, the driver may argue that the crash was not
foreseeable and therefore not his fault. To avoid such outcomes, the law imposes a second stage of
analysis, which is called the “remoteness” or “foreseeability” test.
Tests to Determine Remoteness of Damage

2. Remoteness/Foreseeability Test:
 The foreseeability test considers whether a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have
foreseen the harm suffered by the plaintiff.
 It involves a subjective assessment of what a reasonable person would have foreseen, considering factors
such as the nature of the risk, circumstances, knowledge, and the relationship between the parties.
 The foreseeability test is based on the principle of causation in-law, which requires a close causal
connection between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s harm.
 The defendant should only be held responsible for the harm that is directly and immediately caused by
their wrongful conduct, and not for the remote or indirect consequences that are beyond their control
or knowledge.
 However, the foreseeability test is not an objective criterion, as it involves a subjective assessment of
what a reasonable person would have foreseen in the defendant’s position.
Tests to Determine Remoteness of Damage
 The court must consider a range of factors, such as the nature and extent of the risk posed by the
defendant’s conduct, the circumstances in which the conduct occurred, the knowledge and experience of
the defendant, and the relationship between the parties, among others.
 One of the key challenges in applying the foreseeability test is to draw the line between foreseeable and
unforeseeable damage.
 For example; In the case of The Wagon Mound No. 1, the defendant’s ship, the Wagon Mound was re-
fuelling another ship and negligently spilled oil into the water, no effort was made to clear up the oil and
it quickly spread to the plaintiff’s wharf. Welding was taking place on the wharf and sparks caused debris
underneath the wharf to ignite which then caused the oil to ignite, causing significant damage by largely
destroying the wharf and the equipment on it. It was held that the damage suffered, although a direct
consequence of spilled furnace oil causing a fire, was not reasonably foreseeable at the time. Hence, the
defendant was not liable.
 On the contrary, in Hughes v Lord Advocate(1963), the defendant was held liable for a child's burns
resulting from playing with a paraffin lamp down a manhole, as the defendant failed to guard the
manhole. Despite the unforeseeable explosion, it was foreseeable that children could get burned when
mishandling such lamps.
 Tests to Determine Remoteness of Damage
3. Proximity Test:
 The proximity test, in addition to the "but for" and foreseeability tests, assesses the close relationship
between the defendant and plaintiff. It determines whether the defendant owes a duty of care to the
plaintiff, particularly when the harm is not a direct consequence of the defendant's conduct, but
rather a result of a series of intervening factors or events.
 For example, in Bourhill v. Young(1943), the plaintiff, a pregnant woman, witnessed a motorcyclist being
killed in a road accident several hundred yards away. She subsequently suffered a nervous shock and
gave birth to a stillborn child. The Court held that the defendant was not liable for the plaintiff’s
losses, as there was no proximity between them and the harm suffered by the plaintiff was too
remote and unforeseeable.
 The law should only impose liability on the defendant for harm that is within their sphere of influence
and control, and not for harm that is caused by other factors beyond their control.
 Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad: In a case involving injuries sustained during an explosion caused by a
dropped package on a nearby rail, could the defendant railroad be held liable for negligence based on
the conduct of its guards in pushing the man carrying the package?

Novus Actus Interveniens
 In arguing against causation in law, the defendant may absolve his or her liability by proving that
there was an intervening factor that had caused the damage and that he or she should not be made
liable for the incurred damages. Various ways to demonstrate intervention include the following;

a. An intervening act of the plaintiff (Volenti non-fit injuria):

 The concept of an intervening act of the claimant is closely linked to contributory negligence. Unlike
contributory negligence, where the defendant remains liable but damages are reduced based on the
plaintiff's responsibility, in this plea, it is argued that the plaintiff is entirely responsible for their
damage.
 This is evident in the case of McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts(1969), where the plaintiff
injured his leg at his workplace and proceeded to descend staircases without holding the rail,
resulting in further injuries to his legs. The court held that the employer was liable only for
compensating the initial injury, not for the subsequent injuries, as the plaintiff acted unreasonably
by placing himself in a position of danger.
Novus Actus Interveniens
b. Intervening Act of Nature (Act of god):

 A plea that an act of nature has broken the chain of causation will rarely succeed. This is primarily because,
in such cases, the plaintiff is then left without any recourse to obtain a remedy for the harm endured.
 Nevertheless, the defendant may be relieved of liability when demonstrating that the alleged act of
nature breaking the chain of causation is both unforeseeable and independent of their negligence.
 In the case of Carslogie Steamship Co v Royal Norwegian Government (1952), the plaintiff's ship
sustained damage after a collision caused by the defendant's navy. Following repairs, the ship embarked
on an unplanned voyage and suffered further damage in a heavy storm. The argument that the
defendant should be held responsible for both the initial and storm-induced damage was unsuccessful.
 The House of Lords acknowledged that the storm constituted a genuine break in the chain of causation,
absolving the defendant of liability for the full extent of the damage. The storm damage was deemed a
separate occurrence not directly tied to the collision but rather an event that could have happened
during any voyage
Novus Actus Interveniens
c. An intervening act of a third party(Act of the third party):
 To establish a successful plea of novus actus interveniens in these situations, the defendant must
demonstrate that the third party's action was negligent and had such significant consequences that it
effectively disrupted the chain of causation. Additionally, the defendant must not have a duty to
prevent the third party's actions.
 In Knightley v Johns (1982), the defendant, through his negligent driving, crashed and blocked a
tunnel. The police officer in charge at the scene then negligently sent a police officer against the
traffic flow to block off the tunnel at the other end. There was a second accident and the police
officer was injured as a result. The court held that the defendant was not liable for the injuries
sustained by this policeman. They were the fault of the other police officer and his action amounted to
a novus actus interveniens. For the third party’s act to break the chain of causation, the consequences
of the third party’s act must be foreseeable.
 In Lamb v Camden London Borough Council (1981), the defendant council negligently broke a water
main as a result of which the plaintiff’s house suffered water damage and the claimants had to move
out. While the plaintiffs were out of the house, squatters moved in and caused much more damage.
The council was held not liable for the further damage. The actions of the squatters were a novus
actus interveniens. It was not foreseeable.
4. Damages
 Establishing that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care is insufficient; it is also necessary
to prove that this failure resulted in damages to the plaintiff to whom the duty of care was owed.
 These damages can manifest in various forms (Protected Interests), including;
i. Bodily harm,
ii. Harm to reputation,
iii. Harm to property,
iv. Financial loss, or
v. Mental harm.
 Once such damage is proven, the defendant becomes obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the
incurred damages.
 In the case of Joseph vs Dr. George Moonjely (1994), the Kerala High Court awarded damages
totaling Rs. 1,60,000 against a surgeon for conducting an operation on a 24-year-old girl without
adhering to proper procedures.