Editing Negligence (section)

=== Common law ===

==== India ====
With regard to negligence, [[Tort law in India|Indian jurisprudence]] follows the approach stated in ''Ratanlal & Dhirajlal: The Law of Torts'',<ref>{{Citation|editor-last=Singh J|editor-first=G.P.|title=The Law of Torts|author=Ratanlal & Dhirajlal|publisher=Butterworths|edition=24th.}}</ref><ref>In the case of Ms Grewal & Anor v Deep Chand Soon & Ors [2001] L.R.I. 1289 at [14], the court held that "negligence in common parlance mean and imply failure to exercise due care, expected of a reasonable prudent person. It is a breach of duty and negligence in law ranging from inadvertence to shameful disregard of safety of others. ... negligence represents a state of the mind which however is much serious in nature than mere inadvertence. ... whereas inadvertence is a milder form of negligence, negligence by itself means and imply a state of mind where there is no regard for duty or the supposed care and attention which one ought to bestow."</ref> laying down three elements:
*A [[duty of care]] (i.e. a legal duty to exercise "ordinary care and skill")
*A violation of the appropriate [[standard of care]]{{efn|In other words, the breach of the duty caused by the omission to do something which a [[reasonable person]], guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a reasonable person would not do.}}
* [[Causation (law)|Causation]] (i.e. the violation resulted in injury to the plaintiff's person or property)

The Indian approach to professional negligence requires that any skilled task requires a skilled professional.<ref>''Jacob Mathew v State of Punjab'' [2005] S.C. 0547, per R.C. Lahoti.</ref> Such a professional would be expected to be exercising his skill with reasonable competence.<ref name="JM">''Jacob Mathew v State of Punjab'' at [8]</ref> Professionals may be held liable for negligence on one of two findings:
*They were not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed.
*They did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. The standard to be applied for determining whether or not either of the two findings can be made is whether a competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession would possess or exercise in a similar manner the skill in question. Consequently, it is not necessary for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise in that branch which he practices.<ref name="JM"/> Professional opinion is generally accepted, but courts may rule otherwise if they feel that the opinion is "not reasonable or responsible".<ref>''Vinitha Ashok v Lakshmi Hospital & Ors'' [2001] 4 L.R.I.292 at [39].</ref>

==== New Zealand ====
{{specific|section|date=May 2024}}
* [[Balfour v Attorney-General]] [1991] 1 NZLR 519 (the court differentiated between [[defamation]] and negligence)<ref>{{cite book |last1=Gillooly |first1=Michael |title=The law of defamation in Australia and New Zealand |date=1998 |publisher=Federation Press |location=Sydney |page=10 |isbn=9781862873001}}</ref>
* [[Clearlite Holdings Ltd v Auckland City Corp]] [1976] 2 NZLR 729,<ref>{{cite book |title=Butterworths Student Companion Torts |edition=4th |last1=McLay |first1=Geoff |publisher=LexisNexis |isbn=0-408-71686-X|year=2003 |page=}}</ref> Paxhaven Holdings LId. v. Attorney-General [1974] 2 N.Z.L.R. 185 (both on the interrelation of negligence and nuisance)<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Vennell |first1=Margaret A. |title=The Essentials of Nuisance: A Discussion of Recent New Zealand Developments in the Tort of Nuisance |journal=[[Otago Law Review]] |date=1977 |pages=60–61}}</ref>
* [[Mainguard Packaging Ltd v Hilton Haulage Ltd]] [1990] 1 NZLR 360<ref>{{cite book |title=Butterworths Student Companion Contract |edition=4th |last1=Walker |first1=Campbell |publisher=LexisNexis |isbn=0-408-71770-X|year=2004 |page=245}}</ref>
* Cases regarding negligence in building construction: <ref>{{cite book |last1=French |first1=Mike |title=Donoghue v Stevenson and local authorities: A New Zealand perspective - can the tort of negligence be built on shaky foundations? |publisher=University of the West of Scotland |date=2012}}</ref> [[Bowen v Paramount Builders (Hamilton) Ltd]] [1977] 1 NZLR 394; [[Scott Group Ltd v McFarlane]] [1978] 1 NZLR 553; [[Mount Albert Borough Council v Johnson]] [1979] 2 NZLR 234; [[Brown v Heathcote County Council]] [1986] 1 NZLR 76; [[South Pacific Manufacturing Co Ltd v New Zealand Security Consultants & Investigations Ltd]] [1992] 2 NZLR 282 ; [[Invercargill City Council v Hamlin]] [1994] 3 NZLR 513; Te Mata Properties Ltd v Hastings District Council. [2009] 1 NZLR 460;  Queenstown Lakes DC V Charterhall Trustees Ltd [2009] NZSC 116; 
** ''leaky buildings'': Dicks v Hobson Swan Construction Ltd (2006) HC; North Shore City Council v Body Corporate ("Sunset Terraces"); Spencer on Byron (2011) SC.

==== United States ====
The United States generally recognizes four elements to a negligence action: duty, breach, proximate causation and injury. A [[plaintiff]] who makes a negligence claim must prove all four elements of negligence in order to win his or her case.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Healey |first1=Paul D. |date=1995 |title=Chicken Little at the Reference Desk: The Myth of Librarian Liability |url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/llj87&div=38&id=&page= |journal=Law Library Journal |volume=87 |page=515 |access-date=22 September 2017}}</ref> Therefore, if it is highly unlikely that the plaintiff can prove one of the elements, the defendant may request judicial resolution early on, to prevent the case from going to a jury. This can be by way of a [[demurrer]], motion to dismiss, or motion for [[summary judgment]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Currie |first1=David P. |date=Autumn 1977 |title=Thoughts on Directed Verdicts and Summary Judgments |url=https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5912&context=journal_articles |journal=The University of Chicago Law Review |volume=45 |issue=1 |pages=72–79 |doi=10.2307/1599201 |jstor=1599201}}</ref>

The elements allow a defendant to test a plaintiff's accusations before trial, as well as providing a guide to the [[finder of fact]] at trial (the judge in a bench trial, or jury in a jury trial) to decide whether the defendant is or is not liable. Whether the case is resolved with or without trial again depends heavily on the particular facts of the case, and the ability of the parties to frame the issues to the court. The duty and causation elements in particular give the court the greatest opportunity to take the case from the jury, because they directly involve questions of policy.<ref name="mclauchlan">{{cite journal |last1=McLauchlan |first1=William P. |date=June 1977 |title=An Empirical Study of the Federal Summary Judgment Rule |journal=The Journal of Legal Studies |volume=6 |issue=2 |pages=427–459 |doi=10.1086/467581 |s2cid=153380489}}</ref> The court can find that regardless of any disputed facts, the case may be resolved as a matter of law from undisputed facts because as a matter of law the defendant cannot be legally responsible for the plaintiff's injury under a theory of negligence.<ref name="mclauchlan" />

On appeal, depending on the disposition of the case and the question on appeal, the court reviewing a trial court's determination that the defendant was negligent will analyze at least one of the elements of the cause of action to determine if it is properly supported by the facts and law. For example, in an appeal from a final judgment after a jury verdict, the appellate court will review the record to verify that the jury was properly instructed on each contested element, and that the record shows sufficient evidence for the jury's findings. On an appeal from a dismissal or judgment against the plaintiff without trial, the court will review ''[[De novo review|de novo]]'' whether the court below properly found that the plaintiff could not prove any or all of his or her case.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hofer |first1=Ronald R. |date=1990 |title=Standards of Review – Looking beyond the Labels |url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/marqlr74&div=14&id=&page= |journal=Marquette Law Review |volume=74 |access-date=22 September 2017}}</ref>