NEGLIGENCE

The word negligence is not defined under any statute of Indian Law. However, as the law of torts and the precedence laid down by the various courts, there are two types of Negligence, i.e., civil negligence and criminal negligence.

Civil Negligence is the act or breach of duty that has been done by a reasonable man, which is expected to be done by any ordinary or reasonable man, in the daily course of livelihood. It means that any person who has breached their duty of care, which he should not have done, and the same resulted in injury to the other person.

Instances of Civil Negligence are:

• A servant after mopping the floor forgets to put a wet floor sign.
• A doctor operated on the different parts of the body of the patient.
• The company launches any product without testing the same.

Criminal Negligence is the act committed by the person with the intention that such action may result in grave injury or such an act is likely to cause death to other people. Hence, in criminal negligence, the presence of intention is an essential ingredient.

The instances of criminal negligence are:

• Driving at high speed in a densely populated area.
• Loading bullet with pistol and hand over of the same in the hands of a child.

There is a thin line of difference between civil negligence and criminal negligence, i.e., the presence of intention.  In civil negligence, there is a breach of duty, i.e., the duty has been exercised with proper and prudent care. In contrast, under criminal negligence, an act has been committed deliberately knowing that such action will result either in fatal or grievous hurt.

CAUSING DEATH BY NEGLIGENCE

According to Section 304-A of IPC, whoever does any act, which causes death to a person, and that act has been committed in the absence of proper care and was rash and negligent, such act will not be amounting to culpable homicide, but the accused will be charged for causing death by Negligence.

REASONABLE AND PROPER CARE REQUIRED

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of S.N. Hussain vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1972 SC 685 has laid down the settled principle of the law of section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, wherein it has been held that for essentials of section 304-A, there should be an absence of reasonable and proper care. The Court further held that culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise appropriate and proper care. The extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case. The gate is open, and there is no train scheduled to pass at the time, the driver would be justified in driving his vehicle through the level crossing. Passenger trains have a schedule, and if a train is expected to come at about the time the appellant reached the level crossing, a regular driver of motor vehicles on that route may, perhaps, be found negligent in crossing the railway track, if any mischance, the gate was open. But the train in the present case was not a passenger train but a Goods train, and it is not shown that the Goods train was scheduled to pass the level crossing just at about the time the bus reached the spot. The appellant may not even know that a Goods train would be coming at that moment.

The court finally concluded that the appellant could not be held guilty of criminal negligence merely because he did not stop when the road signal wanted him to stop. This was clear ease of unavoidable accident because of the gateman's negligence in keeping the gate open and inviting the vehicles to pass.

Author: Shweta Singh