Negligence

Lack of diligence; omission of due care; failure to use the efforts or take the precautions which an ordinarily prudent person would employ in like circumstances. Upon the distinction between gross, ordinary, and slight negligence, see those expressions. See also Contributive. The cases upon negligence, and the stitutes negligence, relate in great part not to the meaning of the word, but to the question, what are the proper and prudent rules for conducting a business or performing an act in question. Tiius, a decision that a constructor of street improvements, who leaves an excavation open all night, unguarded, is chargeable with negligence, does not in truth turn upon the meaning of the word, but shows what is the proper duty of a person engaged in such works. A decision that it is negligence for a railway engineer to omit the whistle at a crossing means that a duty rests on an engineer to blow the whistle; it has no proper bearing on the meaning of the word negligence. We give such representative cases only as discuss the general meaning of the word. Negligence is where a person neglects or omits to do a thing which he is by law obliged to. Jacob. Negligence is any culpable omission of a positive duty. It differs from heedlessness, in that heedlessness is the doing of an act in violation of a negative duty, without adverting to Its possible consequences. In both cases there is inadvertence, and there is breach of duty.

Aust. Jur. Lects. 19, 20, 24.

Negligence, in reference to the keeping of property, is divided by Sir W. Jones into three kinds: Gross negligence, which is the want of that care which every man of common sense takes of his own property; ordinary negligence, which is the omission of that care which men of prudence take of their concerns; and slight negligence, which is the omission of that diligence which very circumspect and careful persons employ. 2 Steph. Com. 81, 82, and note (c). The question what shall be considered negligence, for which a person injured by it may recover damages, is a question for the jury, subject to certain rules of law, or of common sense, according to which the measure of culpable negligence varies according as the circumstances of the cases differ. In all cases, the first point to settle is the amount or degree of diligence exigible from the defendant, for by means of that positive criterion it is possible to ascertain in the next place the amount or degree of negligence on the defendant's part which will involve him in liability for the damage which has arisen. The rule is, that the negligence is inversely in proportion to the diligence. For example, if but slight diligence {levis diliyentia) is exigible, then only gross negligence (crassa negligentia), amounting also to wilfulness or intentionality {dolus), will render the defendant liable, as depositaries or mandatories. And, on the other hand, if extreme diligence (exacta diligentia) is exigible, then the slightest negligence (/em negligentia or levis culpa) will in like manner render the defendant liable, as is the case with inn-keepers, carriers, and generally with paid bailees. Subject to these rules, the question is one of fact. Brown. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.

Nitroglycerine Case, 15 Wall. 524; BIythe v. Birmingham Waterworks, 36 Eng. L. ^ Eg. 506.

Negligence is the want of that care which men of common sense and common prudence ordinarily exercise in like employments.

Bizzell V. Booker, 16 Ark. 308; O'Brien v. R. R. Co., 3 PMla. 76.

Where there is no obligation of care or caution, there can be no negligence. Thus, in so far as one is not under obligation to be cautious in behalf of a wrong-doer, the latter cannot charge him for negligence. Needham v. San Francisco, &c.

K. R. Co., 37 Cat. 409, 423.

Gross negligence, in a condition in a policy of insurance exempting from loss on that account, means the want of that diligence which even careless men are accustomed to exercise.

Lycoming Ins. Co. v. Barringer, 73 Til. 2.30.

That a mistake is not negligence, see Flournoy v. Jeffersonville, 17 Ind. 169. Negligence is the want of that care which a prudent man ordinarily exercises under the giyen circumstances. Shehan v. Cornwall, 29 Iowa, 99. / The reasonable belief of a party that he will iuot sustain an injury in doing acts which, but for such belief, would be negligent, does not exonerate him from the charge of contributive negligence.

Muldowney^ v. Illinois Central E. E. Co., 36 Iowa, 462.

Negligence or carelessness signifies want of ca Ke, caution, attention, ^Hgence, ' or discretion in one baring no positive intention to anjure the person complaining thereof, the words " reckless," " indifferent," " careless," and " wanton " are never understood ito signify positive will or intention, unless when joined with other words which -show that they are to receive an artificial or unusual, S not an unnatural, interpretation.

Lexington v. Lewis, 10 Bush, 677.

Negligence is a violation of the obligation which enjoins care and caution in what we do. Even'wheu gross, it is but an omission of duty.

Tonaiwanda E. E. Go. v. Hunger, 6 Den..255, 266; 4 A'. Y. 349; Carroll v. N. Y. & New Haven E. E. Co., 1 Buer, 571, 583.

Negligence means simply the want of Negligence consists in omitting to do what a person ought to do. It is of the essence of negligence that the party charged should have knowledge that there was a duty for him to perform; or he must have omitted to inform himself as to what his duty was, in a given case. Knowledge is presumed, in a great number of cases, and the party will not be permitted to prove that he had not knowledge of his duty. Every man is presumed to know the law; and hence, when the law imposes a duty on a man, it presumes that he knew of it; and it will not permit him to prove that he did not. When the specified duty is not imposed, by either the statute or the common law, the party alleging negligence must show that the accused was cognizant of the duty he is charged with having neglected. Sherman v. Western Transp.

Co., 62 Barb. 150.

The law will not hold it imprudent in one to act upon the presumption that another, in his conduct, will act in accordance with the rights and duties of both, even though such other has once conducted himself in a contrary manner. Newson v. New York, &c.

R. E. Co:, 29 N. Y. 383.

To support an action for negligence, there must be proof of carelessness at the time of the accident; general recklessness will not suffice.

King v. Mc Dermott, 2 Phila. 175.

To constitute negligence, there must be a disregard of some duty or rule of conduct prescribed beforehand, or arising so manifestly from the facts as to leave no doubt of its existence.

Warner v. E. R. Co., 6 Phila. 537.

Where the law imposes a duty on a party, and he is disabled to perform it by the act of God, the performance is excused.

Mosely v. Baker, 2 Sneed, 362.

One may act in good faith, and still be guilty of gross negligence.

Lincoln v. Buckmaster, 32 Vt. 652.

The term negligence embraces acts of omission, as well as of commission, in its legal signification, and diligence implies action as well as forbearance ta act; hence the result of a mere accident may constitute a good cause of action.

Grant v. Moseley, 29 Ala. 302.

Accident is an event from an unknown cause, or an unusual and unexpected event from a known cause; a chance or casualty. A usual and expected event from omission of proper precautions is not accident, but it is negligence. Crutchfield v. Richmond, &c.

E. R. Co., 70 N. C. 380.

The law gives no redress for inevitable accidents, or for losses resulting from mutual negligence. But when the injury conies from the exclusive negligence of ope party, he cannot shield himself from liability by calling it an accident.

Mc Grew V. Stone, 53 Pa. St. 436.

To constitute wilful negligence, the act alleged to be wilful.

Peoria Bridge Association V. Loomis, 20 111. 235.

The word negligence ordinarily excludes design. Gove v. Farmers', &c.

Ins. Co., 48 N. U. 41.

Negligent escape.

See Escape.