For this edition, the entire text has been thoroughly updated and several chapters have been extensively rewritten. WINFIELD AND JOLOWICZ: 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 [Ref. Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, Ninth Edition, 1971, p. 45]. INEVITABLE ACCIDENT: Inevitable accident also works as a defence of negligence. An inevitable accident is that which could not possibly, be prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill. it means accident physically unavoidable. Secondly, whether there is a relation of proximity between the parties. For example, was there a legal relationship or physical closeness? There was proximity in Home Office v Dorset Yacht Club, but not in Caparo. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts, 24th Edition 1997 Reprint 2002; Published by Wadhwa and Company, Nagpur, India.

This edition has been updated to incorporate the developments that have taken place in the law of tort. Although centred in English law, significant case law developments in other major Commonwealth jurisdictions are also considered Negligence is the omission to do something, which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations, which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or do something, which a prudent and reasonable man would not do”. Ocr tesseract 5.0.0-alpha-20201231-10-g1236 Ocr_detected_lang en Ocr_detected_lang_conf 1.0000 Ocr_detected_script Latin Ocr_detected_script_conf 0.9950 Ocr_module_version 0.0.13 Ocr_parameters -l eng Old_pallet IA-WL-2000023 Openlibrary_edition Thirdly, the courts will consider the seriousness of harm as sometimes, the risk of harm may be low but this will be counter-balanced by the gravity of harm to a particularly vulnerable claimant. See, for example , Paris v Stepney Borough CouncilDUTY TO TAKE CARE: One of the essential conditions of liability for negligence is that the defendant owed a legal duty towards the plaintiff. The following case laws will throw some light upon this essential element. Thirdly, whether in all circumstances it would be fair, just and reasonable for the law to impose such a duty of care. It was held not to be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty on the police in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire. However, a duty was imposed on the fire brigade in Capital and Counties plc v Hampshire County Council. Dr. S.K. Kapoor, Law of Torts and Consumer Protection Act, 6th Edition 2003; Published by Central Law Agency, Allahabad. Comprehensive coverage of new legislation, as well as the impact on existing legislation of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union

A new section on damage in the law of negligence, incorporating discussion of Dryden v Johnson Matthey In Brown v. Kendal, (1859) 6 Cussing 292; the plaintiff’s and defendant’s dogs were fighting, while the defendant was trying to separate them, he accidentally hit the plaintiff in his eye who was standing nearby. The injury to the plaintiff was held to be result of inevitable accident and the defendant was not liable.The tort of negligence has been explained in a very lucid manner taking into consideration its meaning, essentials, denences and relevant case laws... In Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works Co., (1856) LR 11 Exch. 781; ALDERSON, B. defined negligence as, negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man…….. would do, or doing something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do. BREACH OF DUTY TO TAKE CARE: Yet another essential condition for the liability in negligence is that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant committed a breach of duty to take care or he failed to perform that duty.