A person is negligent when he or she fails to act like the standard “ordinary reasonable person”. Of course the critical issue in many cases is just how an “ordinary, reasonable person” was expected to act in the particular situation that caused the injury.

For example, an ordinary, reasonable person can travel down the Interstate, which has a posted speed limit of 80 Km per hour, at 80 Km per hour. However, if dense fog is present, the same ordinary, reasonable person would be expected to reduce his/her speed of travel. Suppose someone plows into your car while she was driving at 65 or 60 or 50? Would that be what the standard “ordinary reasonable person” should have done?

The determination of whether a given person has met his/her “ordinary reasonable person” standard is often a matter that is resolved by a jury after presentation of evidence and argument at trial.

Tort law is different from criminal law in that:

(1) torts may result from negligent as well as intentional or criminal actions; and

(2) tort lawsuits have a lower burden of proof such as preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.

In other words, Medical Negligence Cases are decided on a ‘balance of probabilities’ and not ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

In the common law of torts, res ipsa loquitur (Latin for “the thing speaks for itself”) is a doctrine that infers negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any Defendant behaved.

Comparative negligence comes into play when it is contended that two or more parties failed to perform at the standard of the “ordinary reasonable person”. For example, suppose one person was driving too fast in a patch of dense fog on the highway and hit a car — but the car that was hit did not have its lights on as it should have.

In a situation where each party has some degree of negligence in causing an accident, the responsibility to the other person(s) is reduced by the others’ degree of negligence. For example suppose a jury decides that the driver going too fast in the fog was 60% responsible for the accident, while the driver without vehicle lights on is 40% responsible. If the driver who didn’t have his lights on would have recovered Rs 1,000,000, his recovery would be reduced to Rs 600,000 because of his 40% contributory negligence. Whether the speeding driver would recover anything will depend on the law.

To support a legal claim for negligence, the Claimant (the person filing the lawsuit) must show four things:

• That the Defendant (the person or entity being sued) owed the Claimant a duty of care;
• that the Defendant failed to exercise due care towards the Claimant (i.e. breached the duty);
• that the Defendant’s breach of duty caused the Claimant’s injury; and
• that the Claimant suffered damages as a result.

In order for someone to be legally responsible for damages, it is necessary to show that the wrongful act was the proximate cause of the harm. The injury must be shown to be the natural and probable result or consequence of the act of negligence alleged to have been committed. The Claimant must prove that any negligence of which the Defendant is accused proximately caused the Claimant’s injury.

There may be more than one proximate cause of an accident. Multiple acts of negligence by different people may cause the same accident, yet each may be deemed to be a proximate cause of the accident. Sometimes there is an intervening cause which comes after the original negligence of the Defendant which may reduce the amount of the Defendant’s liability. If this intervening cause is the substantial reason for the injury, then the Defendant will not be liable at all.

Assumption of risk is a defense which a Defendant can raise which basically states that the Claimant has knowingly assumed the risk of the harm that was caused.  A fan hit by a basketball at a basketball game has assumed the risk of getting hit because it is a known danger that basketballs are thrown into the stands by players (when another player fails to make the catch) from time to time.  However, the doctrine of assumption of risk has been watered down by the doctrine of contributory negligence. 

For example, if a Claimant drives an automobile knowing his brakes are defective and he fails to stop at a road crossing and is there­fore hit by a bus, contributory negligence would be more appropriate than assumption of risk, although the Claimant could arguably be deemed to have assumed the risk of an accident by driving with defective brakes that he knew to be defective.

Volenti non fit iniuria (or injuria) (Latin: “to a willing person, injury is not done”) is a common law doctrine which states that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party.

Negligence is a term that means carelessness or a breach of an obligation. Negligence is used in general language to mean someone was unreasonably lax in fulfilling some obligation. If someone is negligent in the eyes of the law, he or she could face a civil lawsuit or even criminal charges.

Criminal Negligence

When a person breaches a legal obligation, or falls short of fulfilling an obligation, it is considered negligence. In some cases, a person is considered criminally negligent. For example:

• A parent who leaves a two-year-old child alone in the house in order to go out to a bar and have a good time could face charges for criminal negligence. 
• A person who drives 40 miles over the speed limit in a really dangerous way and who causes a car accident and injures someone could be charged with criminal negligence.
• A person who breaks texting-and-driving laws and who is typing a text message when he or she gets into a car accident and kills someone could be considered criminally negligent. 
• A nurse in a nursing home who forgets to feed a patient who needs help to eat, causing the patient to starve to death, could be considered criminally negligent.
• A caregiver in a hospital who isn’t paying attention and who gives someone a deadly dose of a medication could be considered criminally negligent. 
• A doctor who prescribes addictive drugs to a known drug addict because the doctor gets paid for his or her services could be considered criminally negligent.

Someone charged with criminal negligence could go to jail.

Civil Negligence

When a person is negligent or careless in a way that causes harm to someone else, the victim of the negligence can sue. This is called civil liability or civil negligence.

There are lots of examples of negligence that can lead to a civil lawsuit. For example:

• Property owners who let steps to their house crumble and leave a railing unrepaired could be considered negligent if they invites friends over to their house and their friends trip on the railing and steps and hurt themselves. 
• A restaurant owner who mops the slippery floor and doesn’t put up a “Wet Floor” sign could be considered negligent. 
• A store that knows things get really out-of-control on Black Friday and who hosts a big sales event, encouraging a mob scene with no security, could be considered negligent. 
• A doctor who operates on the wrong patient or on the wrong body part because he or she misreads the chart could be considered negligent. 
• A company that releases a dangerous drug without fully testing the medication and identifying all of the side effects can be considered negligent. 
• A driver who runs a stop sign and who drives well over the legal speed limit can be considered negligent. 
• A person who owns a dog that he knows is dangerous and who takes the dog to the park where the dog bites a small child could be considered negligent. 
• A lawyer who doesn’t really know how to prosecute a case but who takes the case anyway and doesn’t adequately represent the client can be considered to be liable for professional negligence. 

In each of these situations, a Claimant could file a lawsuit and obtain compensation if he or she can prove the negligence was the direct cause of some type of harm they endured.