Damages

Introduction

In an action for negligence, it is not enough to prove that the defendant owed a duty of care and breached that duty. The plaintiff must also prove that the breach caused actual damage or injury.

The damage must be a direct and reasonably connected result of the defendant’s negligence. If the damage is too remote (too indirect or unlikely), the defendant will not be liable.

Meaning / Definition

Damages in negligence mean the harm, loss, or injury suffered by the plaintiff due to the defendant’s breach of duty.

To succeed in a negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove:

The defendant owed a duty of care
The defendant breached that duty
The breach caused damage to the plaintiff
The damage was not too remote

Thus, there must be a clear connection between the defendant’s negligent act and the injury suffered by the plaintiff.

Modes or Types

Requirement of Actual Damage

Negligence becomes actionable only when the plaintiff suffers actual damage or injury.

If no damage occurs, even a careless act will not give rise to a legal claim. The plaintiff must show that the injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s act.

Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur

The Latin maxim res ipsa loquitur means “the thing speaks for itself.”

Normally, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant was negligent. However, in some cases the circumstances themselves clearly indicate negligence.

In such situations, the court may presume negligence even without direct evidence.

Important features of this doctrine include:

It is a rule of evidence, not a rule of law.
It helps the plaintiff when the true cause of the accident is mainly within the defendant’s knowledge.

The doctrine applies when:

The instrument or thing causing injury was under the control of the defendant, and
The accident is of a type that normally would not occur without negligence.

The doctrine will not apply when:

The accident can be explained in more than one way, or
The facts are already clearly known.

Examples where res ipsa loquitur may apply include:

A brick falling from a building onto a passerby
A bus overturning on the road
A stone found inside food
Injury caused by a broken live electric wire on the street

Professional Negligence

Professionals such as doctors, lawyers, architects, and engineers are expected to have special skills.

When they provide services, they must exercise reasonable skill and care expected from an ordinary competent professional in that field.

They do not promise perfect results or the highest level of skill. However, failure to use reasonable professional care may result in liability.

In medical cases, doctors must:

Carefully decide whether to accept the patient’s case
Decide the appropriate treatment
Properly administer the treatment

Failure in any of these duties may amount to negligence.

Important Case Law

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwati

A clock tower in Chandni Chowk collapsed and caused several deaths. The Supreme Court held that the owner of structures near public roads has a duty to maintain them safely. The Municipal Corporation was held liable.

Pillutla Savitri v. G.K. Kumar

Part of a building under construction collapsed and killed an advocate sitting below. The court applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur and presumed negligence on the part of the persons responsible for construction.

Mrs. Aparna Dutta v. Apollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd.

After a surgery, an abdominal pack was left inside the patient’s body. The court held that leaving a foreign object inside the body clearly indicated negligence and applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur. Compensation was awarded.

Agyakaur v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation

A bus travelling on the wrong side of the road hit a rickshaw moving correctly. The driver of the bus was held negligent.

Wakelin v. London and South Western Railway Co.

A man was found dead near a railway crossing. The court held that negligence could not be presumed merely from the fact of death because it was not clear whether the train hit the man or the man ran into the train.

Dr. Laxman v. Dr. Trimbak

The court held that a doctor owes three duties to a patient:

Duty to decide whether to undertake the case
Duty to decide the proper treatment
Duty to administer the treatment with care

Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee

The court laid down the Bolam Test, stating that a doctor is not negligent if he acts in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible group of medical professionals.

F v. Berkshire Health Authority

The House of Lords held that doctors may treat a patient who cannot give consent if the treatment is necessary and in the patient’s best interest.

M. Veerappa v. Evelyn Sequeira

The Supreme Court held that an advocate engaged to act for a client may be liable for negligence in performing professional duties.

Distinction / Comparison

Direct Proof of Negligence vs Res Ipsa Loquitur

Direct Proof of Negligence

The plaintiff must provide evidence showing the defendant acted carelessly.

Res Ipsa Loquitur

Negligence is presumed from the circumstances of the accident.
The burden shifts to the defendant to prove absence of negligence.

Thus, res ipsa loquitur helps the plaintiff when direct evidence is difficult to obtain.

Practical Example

A patient undergoes surgery and later experiences severe pain. Another operation reveals that a surgical instrument was left inside the body.

In this case, the court may apply res ipsa loquitur, because such an event normally does not happen without negligence.

The doctor and hospital may therefore be held liable for damages.

Summary

Damage is an essential element of negligence.

The plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s breach caused actual injury.

The injury must not be too remote from the negligent act.

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allows courts to presume negligence in certain situations.

Professionals must exercise reasonable skill and care in their work.

Doctors and lawyers may be liable if their professional negligence causes harm.