Editing Negligence (section)

==== 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>