We will be talking about how negligence played a role in making laws and helped in judicial work. India is a diverse country where a number of people live in nations in different-different part of the country, so it is very difficult for all people of any nations to follow general rules and regulations without any proper effective law or any statutes passed by the authoritative body. Because each and every person has its own certain aim or ideology to run their life in a manner where they feel full satisfaction, so to control them from any unnecessary act which is of no need in the society.

To control over them the government made certain rule and regulations to follow to avoid negligence which is done by its country's people. In this project we will try to cover all the essential parts of the negligence and the negligence which occur in our daily life, and will also talk how negligence could control over the period of time. We will briefly explain the definition of negligence, jurist views on negligence and the two theories of negligence. And we will discuss the types of negligence and will also discuss its types in broader ways.

Here we will also talk about some important parts of negligence where we will see the effects of negligence how people do negligence and its way to find the negligence done by the person who is victim of such act and we also come with the point of punishment how it could be and how to decide the punishment of such behaviour which is unacceptable in the society. After the discussion of all this negligence we will summarize the project by giving conclusion part of the topic and will try to find related question of this topic from which it will be easy to understand the topic the theories of negligence.

Introduction
As a result, "the mental attitude of undue indifference concerning one's conduct and its consequences" is the fundamental component of neglect. A man may be deemed negligently accountable if he does not properly want to prevent a specific outcome.

For the past 150 years or so, negligence—defined as the inability to use the care and caution of a normally wise and careful man—has dominated the standard of civil liability for accidents in this and most other countries.

Accident cases, primarily those involving carelessness, make up the majority of the civil caseload handled by the country's trial courts.

Negligence is defined as the failure to perform an act that a wise and reasonable person would not perform, or the performance of an act that a reasonable man, guided by the principles that typically govern the conduct of human affairs, would not perform. It comprises the objective standard of behaviour of a rational man, according to Pollock.

Negligence is defined as a duty violation brought on by the failure to take action that a reasonable person would have taken in the same situation. When a defendant fails to apply reasonable care or skill towards an individual to whom they owe it, it is considered actionable negligence. For example, when a fridge is neglected and the plaintiff's person or property is harmed.

Definition [2]:

Some of the Important definitions of Negligence are as follows:

• Prof Winfield: According to Professor Winfield Negligence is the breach of a legal duty to take care, which results in damage, undesired by the defendant to the plaintiff.
• Baron Alderson: Negligence is the omission to do something, which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations, which ordinarily regulate human affairs, would do or doing something, which a prudent or reasonable man would not do.

Theories Of Negligence

There Are Two Theories Of Negligence As Follows:

>Subjective Theory:

• The main proponent of the subjective theory of carelessness is Sir John Salmond. Professor Winfield concurs with this theory. The 'mens-rea' (mental element) in tortious liability is the foundation of the subjective theory. It is an attitude or an unintentional behaviour and outcome.

Objective Theory:

• The idea that negligence is a separate tort forms the foundation of the objective theory. Sir Frederick Pollock is the primary proponent of the objective theory of science. This approach holds that negligence is behaviour that falls short of the legal requirements for safeguarding others from an unjustified risk of harm, not a state of mind.

Terms Of Negligent Liability:
Actionable negligence focuses on the defendant's carelessness in using ordinary skill or care towards a person to whom the defendant owes a duty, and as a result of such carelessness, the plaintiff has suffered harm to himself or his property.

Therefore, the following criteria must be met for negligence to be liable:

• Because there cannot be any liability for negligence absent a breach of a legal obligation, the defendant was required by law to use reasonable care and skill.
• That the plaintiff was the object of the duty.
• That the defendant failed to exercise due care and skill, constituting a breach of duty on the part of the defendant.
• That the violation of duty directly resulted in injury or damage as a natural and likely outcome. Stated differently, the injury that is being complained of should have its proximate cause, or the causa causes, being the breach of such a duty.

If there is no legal remedy because the damage and the negligent act's causal relationship is too far apart, then there is no way to mitigate the damage.

Types of Negligence [3]:

• Comparative Negligence: In this case, his injuries are partially attributable to the plantar. In these situations, payment of a portion of the damages is necessary. Consequently, the fraction of fault lowers the total damages that must be paid. For instance, the court has determined that the plant has 30% of the blame for the injuries sustained in an automobile accident for which the plaintiff is entitled to a 50000rupee compensation. There would be a 30% decrease in the amount to be awarded.
   
• Contributory Negligence: Contributory negligence is solely based on the question of whether the plaintiff could have reasonably been prevented from suffering the effects of the defendant's negligence, not on any obligation that may have been broken between the parties. If the plaintiff is accused of contributing to the defendant's negligence, it must be demonstrated that the plaintiff knew about the danger that was present or the defendant's negligence and that the plaintiff could have reasonably averted the danger or the defendant's negligence. The plaintiff would not be compensated in this instance.
   
• Combination of comparative and contributory negligence: Contributory negligence is adopted in the system that combines the components of comparative and contributory negligence. In these situations, we are entitled to compensation if the plaintiff bears no fault for more than half of his injuries.
   
• Gross Negligence: I referred to incidents as severe negligence when the negligence was so egregious that it revealed a total disregard for other people's safety. Exceeding mere carelessness in severity, gross negligence is a more severe type of negligence.
   
• Vicarious Negligence: The liability of an animal or another person is known as vicarious carelessness. For instance, the owner of the dog would be responsible for any damages if the dog hurt someone.

There are three important points here.
The first, which is somewhat dubious, holds that nineteenth-century businesses were given a subsidy when the negligence standard was adopted. Railroad costs associated with crossing accidents will indeed decrease and railroad output will likely increase if you shift from a system where, for example, railroads are strictly liable for injuries caused in crossing accidents to one where they are only liable if negligent.

The orthodox view's second key implication is that paying for the victim's medical bills, lost wages, pain, and other accident-related expenses is the main goal of civil culpability for accidents. Therefore, it is a terrible system if the compensation structure is flawed. However, Holmes rejected a compensating explanation as being outside the scope of the fault system in his seminal article on the subject.

The third orthodox view emphasises the morality of neglect, particularly in today's context. The mainstream approach dismisses moral judgements in accident cases as an insignificant factor in determining whether to provide or deny reparation. The rejection of moral criteria as a basis for liability flows readily from the view of the fault system as a compensation scheme and nothing more.

We begin by examining the broad institutional and doctrinal foundation of the negligence system as disclosed by appellate decisions. In both this and the following section (particular rules of culpability), I attempted to thoroughly report the information disclosed by the sample, excluding some superfluous or peripheral facts.

Breach of the defendant's duty. The defendant bears a responsibility of care to people they may hurt, comparable to that of a sensible and careful individual. Breach of duty constitutes actionable negligence. A common carrier, such as a railway, has a higher duty to provide passengers with the best possible care while on board.

Causation. The courts need proof of a causal relationship between the violation of duty, whether by the defendant or the plaintiff, and the injury. Without this proof, the discussion of accident costs becomes irrelevant. If the defendant was negligent but the accident would have happened regardless, the costs of the accident cannot be attributed to their negligence because they could not have been averted with due care. However, the defendant was careless.

Foreseeability. The "proximate cause" theory is used by courts to shield defendants from culpability for unanticipated effects of their carelessness. When the train comes to a stop at a crossing, some unruly people get off. A terrified woman is operating a carriage as she waits for the train to continue crossing the street. Following a delay, the passengers board again, and the train continues.

However, the woman is now running late, it is becoming darker, and her nervousness is causing her to drive erratically. As a result, she crashes into a ditch and sustains injuries. The courts do not consider the railroad's conduct to be the "proximate cause" of her accident, even if it may have been negligent in allowing the train to be delayed at the crossing and the unruly passengers to disembark.

Respondent Superior. As previously stated, in a few cases throughout the period covered by the sample, the defendant was charged of personal negligence. Suits are typically founded on the respondent superior concept, which holds employers accountable for third-party torts committed by employees while on the job. The approach appears to contradict the economic theory of negligence.

A careless worker is analogous to a malfunctioning machine. A company should invest in screening out careless workers and inspecting machinery for defects. However, spending more on employee supervision or machinery inspection may outweigh the cost savings from fewer accidents.

Industrial-Accident Doctrine. During our era, the courts used several unique doctrines when dealing with cases where the accident victim is an employee suing his company. The most basic was that the respondent superior was inapplicable; an employer was not accountable to his employees for injuries caused by other employees, with certain significant exceptions to be highlighted.

The fundamental economic reasoning behind the negligence system is shown through a comparison of this principle with the opposing concept in the event of accidents involving strangers. A pedestrian at a crossing is unable to contribute to the prevention of accidents by spotting negligent workers because they do not know the engineer or fireman of any of the trains that pass.

Damages. To optimise safety using the Hand formula, the procedures for awarding damages once the defendant's liability has been established must measure the social costs of accidents with reasonable accuracy. An accident victim's economic loss for bodily injury, excluding death, includes the following: (1) Property damage, (2) medical expenses, (3) future earnings loss due to disability, and (4) pain and suffering for the victim and family.

In summary of the material presented thus far, I find no evidence of a systematic bias in the law of negligence as it was applied between 1875 and 1905 in favour of the development and growth of industry, with the possible exception that economic development may be thought to be fostered or equivalent to the efficient use of resources.

The common law appears to have handled the claims of both victims and aggressors pretty impartially. Liability regulations appear to have been generally crafted to achieve an efficient (i.e., cost-justified) level of safety and accidents, or more likely, an approximate level thereof. In contrast, legislators' inclination in terms of safety was to impede the growth of industry by passing laws safeguarding labourers and farmers.

The language of the protectionist movement painted the common law courts as insensitive to safety. However, this classification is imprecise. Many common law and legislative norms may have decreased railway and other industry accidents to an efficient level, promoting faster industrial expansion. However, such rules do not exist[4].

Generally Asked Questions:
What Is The Basic Concept Of Negligence?
Negligence is the failure to behave with the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised under the same circumstances. Either a person's actions or omissions of actions can be found negligent.

Is Negligence An Intention?
Negligence happens when someone isn't careful enough to fulfil the necessary standard of care.

Conclusion
The plaintiff in a negligence action must prove damages, causation, a duty, and a breach of that duty. The doctor is required to provide the level of care in the event of a medical negligence claim. Professional groups' rules offer compelling evidence to a jury regarding the standard of care, even though they are not absolute. Although an informed patient may be less likely to file a medical negligence lawsuit after being apprised of the possible hazards associated with a particular surgery, informed consent does not protect a doctor from being sued for carelessness.

Four elements must be proven in court for negligence claims: duty, breach, causation, and damages/harm. In general, the legal concept of "Negligence" holds the reckless individual accountable for any damages that result from their actions when they cause harm to another person.

When someone fails to act in a way that would reasonably protect likely victims from harm, that person is being negligent. For instance, a motorist who strikes a pedestrian and shows an inappropriate degree of caution that deviates from the standard caution of a cautious driver in the same situation may be considered negligent. The injured pedestrian would be able to sue the negligent driver for negligence if it could be proven that the driver was texting and distracted from the road, which is what caused the collision.

References:
Richard A. Posner
He took the references from P.S. Atiyah, Accidents, Compensation and the Law ch. 19 (1970) and Herman Miles Somers and Anne Ramsay Somers, Workmen's Compensation-Prevention, Insurance, and Rehabilitation of Occupational Disability ch. 2 (1954)

1. Posner, Richard A. "A Theory of Negligence." The Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, 1972, pp. 29–96. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/724011. Accessed 31 Dec. 2023.
2. https://www.srdlawnotes.com/2017/12/theories-of-negligence-meaning.html
3. https://www.barelaw.in/negligence-theories-and-kinds/
4. para-1, supra note-4 page-3