Negligence
Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court
Definitions from Case Law
From 318 U.S. 54 - Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad · 1943Most cited · 1,636 citing opinions
the lack of due care under the circumstances; or the failure to do what a reasonable and prudent man would ordinarily have done under the circumstances of the situation; or doing what such a person under the existing circumstances would not have done
How the Supreme Court has restated “Negligence”
Each Supreme Court definition of “Negligence,” sized by how often later courts cited it. “Change” is measured by wording overlap with earlier definitions — a rough signal, not a semantic judgment.
How often courts cite the cases defining “Negligence”
Court decisions citing the 14 opinions that defined “Negligence” — 7,923 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining cases as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.
All 14 definitions, chronological · 1872–1956
- ORIGINAL
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
due care and its opposite, negligence, are relative terms, having respect to the nature of the duty to be performed, the knowledge communicated to the party to be charged, and the prevailing usages of the business.
Strictly speaking, these expressions are indicative rather of the degree of care and diligence which is due from a party and which he fails to perform, than of the amount of inattention, carelessness, or stupidity which he exhibits. If very little care is due from him, and he fails to bestow that little, it is called gross negligence. If very great care is due, and he fails to come up to the mark required, it is called slight negligence. And if ordinary care is due, such as a prudent man would exercise in his own affairs, failure to bestow that amount of care is called ordinary negligence. In each case, the negligence, whatever epithet we give it, is failure to bestow the care and skill which the situation demands.
if from the evidence given it might justly be inferred by the jury that the defendant, in the construction, location, management, or condition of its machine had omitted that care and attention to prevent the occurrence of accidents which prudent and careful men ordinarily bestow, the jury was at liberty to find for the plaintiff.
standard for jury submission
Negligence only becomes a question of law to be taken from the jury when the facts are such that fair-minded men can only draw from them the inference that there was no negligence. If fair-minded men, from the facts admitted, or conflicting testimony, may honestly draw different conclusions as to the negligence charged, the question is not one of law, but of fact, and to be settled by the jury under proper instructions.
question of law vs question of fact
There is an obligation on all persons to take the care which, under ordinary circumstances of the case, a reasonable and prudent man would take, and the omission of that care constitutes negligence.
What, then, is negligence? It is the failure to do what a reasonable person would ordinarily have done under the circumstances of the situation, or the doing what such person, under the existing circumstances, would not have done. The essence of the fault may lie in omission or in commission. The duty is dictated and measured by the exigencies of the occasion.
The rule is well settled that a railroad company is not to be held as guarantying or warranting absolute safety to its employees under all circumstances, but is bound to exercise the care which the exigency reasonably demands in furnishing proper roadbed, tracks, and other structures. A failure to exercise such care constitutes negligence.
of railroad to employees
The common law bases the employer's liability for injuries to the employee upon the ground of negligence; but negligence is merely the disregard of some duty imposed by law; and the nature and extent of the duty may be modified by legislation, with corresponding change in the test of negligence.
definition
the word 'negligence' in the Federal Employers' Liability Act is to be construed liberally to fulfill the purposes for which it was enacted; an assault committed by a foreman in the course of the discharge of his duties and in furtherance of the work of the employer's business—while in excess of the authority conferred by the employer—constitutes negligence within the meaning of the act, as it is a graver breach of duty than mere inadvertence or carelessness
Federal Employers' Liability Act · construing 45 U.S.C. § 51 · Federal Employers' Liability Act
Congress meant no more than this, that the duty must be legal, i.e., imposed by law; that it shall have been imposed for the benefit of the seaman, and for the promotion of his health or safety; and that the negligent omission to fulfill it shall have resulted in damage to his person.
the issue of negligence is one for juries to determine according to their finding of whether an employer's conduct measures up to what a reasonable and prudent person would have done under the same circumstances. And a jury should hold a master 'liable for injuries attributable to conditions under his control when they are not such as a reasonable man ought to maintain in the circumstances', bearing in mind that 'the standard of care must be commensurate to the dangers of the business.
Federal Employers' Liability Act · construing 45 U.S.C. § 51 · Federal Employers' Liability Act
negligence consists of doing that which a person of reasonable prudence would not have done, or of failing to do that which a person of reasonable prudence would have done under like circumstances