Navigating Negligence - A Legal Examination Through Landmark Cases And Medical Jurisprudence
Author: LawSphereX
Category: Property & Real Estate
Published:
Updated:
NAVIGATING NEGLIGENCE: A LEGAL EXAMINATION
THROUGH LANDMARK CASES AND MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE Arundhathy Vinod, BA LLB (Hons.), National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi, Kerala
ABSTRACT
This paper delves into the legal principles of negligence, giving importance to the difference between civil and criminal negligence, their definitions, and their various forms. It explores the concepts of contributory negligence, composite negligence, and medical negligence. It focuses on the legal provision Section 106 of the BNS (304A of the IPC) which deals with death caused due to negligence and highlights the importance of mens rea in the differentiation of criminal and civil negligence. Through landmark cases such as Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, this paper discusses evolving jurisprudence on criminal negligence, especially in the medical field, and the role of intent in determining liability. It concludes by analyzing the balance courts must strike between fairness and accountability when addressing acts of negligence that result in harm or death.
INTRODUCTION
Negligence is a term that is more commonly mentioned in civil cases rather than criminal ones. This is because actions that involve regular negligence, such as getting distracted while driving and causing a rear-end collision, usually do not meet the standard for a criminal conviction. Criminal negligence, also known as culpable negligence, pertains to a defendant who behaves without regard to a significant risk of harm that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have recognised. The tortious definition encompasses an action that constitutes a substantial departure from the overall standard of care. The term "rash" essentially describes a defendant's simultaneous understanding and conscious or wanton disregard of a substantial risk of harm.
Examples include reckless discharge of a firearm toward a house or vehicle, careless driving, drag racing, and criminal vehicular homicide (intoxicated). Some courts distinguish recklessness from criminal negligence, explaining that recklessness requires that the defendant appreciate the risk in question, while criminal negligence occurs when the defendant should have been aware of the risk. 1 The term "criminal negligence" is not defined in the Indian Penal Code, 1860. According to Justice Straight, criminal negligence involves serious and blameworthy neglect, where the offender fails to fulfil a duty with reasonable and proper care to prevent any kind of harm, either to the general public or to a specific individual. He also mentioned that the criminal nature of negligence depends on factors such as the risk associated with the action and its consequences.
2 Civil and criminal negligence definitions share some common terminology, such as "standard of care," but there are distinct differences between them. To be convicted of criminal negligence, a person must fail to be aware of a "substantial and unjustifiable risk. " This requirement is not necessary for a finding of civil negligence. Additionally, the criminal definition necessitates a "gross deviation" from the reasonable person's standard of care. In contrast, civil negligence can be established with any deviation from the reasonable person's standard of care. Consequently, it can be concluded that meeting the criminal definition of negligence is more challenging than the civil definition.
1 Ex parte Koppersmith, 701 So. 2d 821 (Ala. 1997).
2 Empress of India v. Idu Beg, (1881) 3 All. 776 (India).
TYPES OF NEGLIGENCE
1) Contributory Negligence
Contributory negligence occurs when the plaintiff's lack of care contributes to the damage resulting from the defendant's negligence or wrongful conduct. In this defence, the defendant must demonstrate that the plaintiff did not exercise reasonable care for their safety, which ultimately contributed to the harm they experienced. In cases where an accident occurs due to negligence from both parties, contributory negligence is likely, and both parties would be held responsible. When it comes to contributory negligence, the main question determining liability is whether either party could have avoided the consequences of the other party's negligence by taking reasonable care. The party that could have prevented the consequences of the other's negligence would be held accountable for the accident.
If a person's negligent actions or omissions directly caused the death, the fact that the injured person was also careless and contributed to the accident or circumstances leading to the injury would not serve as a defence for the other party. Contributory negligence only applies to the plaintiff's conduct. In the case of Rural Transport Service v. Bezlum Bibi3, the conductor of a bus that was already carrying too many passengers encouraged people to ride on the roof of the bus. When the driver attempted to pass a cart by swerving to the right, the bus went onto the unpaved part of the road, causing Tahcr Sheikh, who was on the bus roof, to be struck by a tree branch. He fell and sustained serious injuries, which ultimately led to his death.
In a lawsuit filed by the deceased's mother to seek compensation, the Calcutta High Court ruled that the conductor and the driver of the bus were negligent and that the deceased also bore some responsibility for taking the risk of riding on the bus roof. As a result, the amount of compensation to be paid by the defendants was reduced by 50%, and they were ordered to pay Rs. 8,000 instead of the originally claimed Rs. 16,000.
2) Composite Negligence
When two or more individuals' negligence leads to the same harm, it is referred to as "Composite Negligence". In India, the courts have not strictly followed English Law, but have instead embraced rules that align with justice, fairness, and good conscience 3Rural Transport Service v. Bezlum Bibi, A. I. R. 1980 Cal. 163 (India). based on Indian circumstances. Unlike in England, the distinction between joint tortfeasors and independent tortfeasors is not very significant in India. This is because the rules in India differ, and the question of such a distinction has rarely come up. Because of this, the term "Composite Negligence" is used to encompass cases of negligence by joint tortfeasors or independent tortfeasors. At times, the courts have overlooked the fact that joint tortfeasors and independent tortfeasors carry different meanings.
Consequently, the term "Composite or joint tortfeasors" has been used to describe a situation that involves independent tortfeasors. 4 MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE Medical negligence is a liability under civil law and criminal law. Negligence in the context of the medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a doctor, additional considerations apply. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional.
So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed. When it comes to the failure of taking precautions what has to be seen is whether those precautions were taken which the ordinary experience of men has found to be sufficient; a failure to use extraordinary precautions which might have prevented the particular happening cannot be the standard for judging the alleged negligence.
A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings; either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. ) The test for determining medical negligence as laid down in Bolam's case5 holds good in its applicability in India; one among such cases is Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab6. 4 Parsani Devi v. State of Haryana, (1973) A. C. J. 531, 535 (P&H). in Hira Devi v. Bhabha Kanti Das, A. I. R.
1977 Gwalior 31.
5 Bolam v. Friern Hosp. Mgmt. Comm., [1957] 1 W.L.R. 582 (Q.B.).
6 Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 3180 (India).
The jurisprudential concept of negligence differs in civil and criminal law. Medical malpractice can lead to liability under both civil and criminal law. When it comes to negligence in the medical profession, a different standard of treatment is required. In India, doctors cannot be criminally liable for mere negligence, lack of caution, or errors in judgment. In the case of Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (2004)7, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that doctors can be found guilty under Section 304A of the IPC only in situations involving gross negligence( the most probable cause of such negligence should be death). ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS FOR SECTION 106(1) OF THE BNS (304A OF THE IPC) This provision of the Sanhita deals with causing death by negligence of a person and it’s punishment.
The person who causes the death of another individual through a reckless or negligent act, which does not amount to culpable homicide, will receive a prison sentence of up to five years and will also be subject to a fine. If a registered medical practitioner causes such an act while performing a medical procedure, they will face a prison sentence of up to two years and will alsoo be inflicted prosecution must provide the proof of death of the victim.
1) Death Caused By Rash And Negligent Act of the Accused
The death of an individual must be the direct and immediate result of a reckless or negligent action by the accused. In this case, the reckless and negligent action of the accused is the be subject to a fine.8 Certain ingredients should be satisfied for the act to come under the ambit of this provision.
2) Death of An Individual
For Section 106 of BNS to be applied the death of the victim must have happened. In civil cases, the plaintiff who has just suffered injuries can claim damages in civil court, but for the criminal charges t immediate cause. It is not sufficient to establish an immediate cause if it is an inevitable cause. There should be no involvement of another person's negligence. The term "act" encompasses an unlawful failure to act. Therefore, an unlawful failure to act also constitutes an offence if such failure is reckless or negligent.9
7 Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Gov’t of N.C.T. of Delhi, A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 4091 (India).
8 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, § 106 (2023)
9 Captain D'Souza v. Pashupati Nath Sarkar, 1968 CriLJ 405 (India 1967).
3) The Act Shall Not Amount To Culpable Homicide
The act of the accused should not fall under the ambit of culpable homicide i.e., Section
105 and murder i.e., Section 101 of the BNS. The accused, while committing the rash
and negligent act should not have the element of intention or knowledge of causing the death of the person. 10 In the case of Abdul Ise Suleman v. State of Gujarat (1994)11, the defendant argued that his action of shooting at a fleeing individual and inadvertently causing the death of another person was due to recklessness or negligence. However, because there was intent involved, the court found the defendant guilty under Section 302 in conjunction with Section 301. As a result, the presence of intent by the defendant will result in harsher penalties under various other sections of the IPC, but not under Section 304A.
SECTION 106(2) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA If someone causes the death of a person by careless and reckless driving, which does not amount to intentional killing, and then fails to report it to a police officer or a Magistrate promptly after the incident, they can be sentenced to imprisonment for up to ten years and may also be fined. The majority of cases will result in charges being filed. Once again, the owner has to cover the advocate fees for the various courts. This means that when a driver is involved in an accident under the Section 106 of the BNS, they must always be with the owner, which can lead to serious exploitation. This situation negatively impacts the driver's life and requires a balanced approach to escape such traps and effectively present their case in court.
Accidents are unavoidable in most situations, and they will occur on roads, with some resulting in serious injuries or even deaths. While strict punishments are necessary, the resulting ripple effect is harming drivers and placing economic burdens on the owners. A thorough study is needed to prevent injustice in the entire transport industry. Prevention is better than cure. Drivers should drive with caution and avoid reckless and negligent driving. The highest number of fatalities involve pedestrians and two-wheelers, who should be promptly taken to the nearest hospitals. If the driver is unable to do so, their assistant or helpers should assist in getting them to the hospitals. In terms of the location of the incident, photographs should be taken, the area should be marked, and the vehicle should be moved. It has been observed that people often wait for
10 Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2004 SC 1966.
11 Abdul Ise Suleman v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1994 SC 1910
the police, causing a major traffic jam. In situations where the police are unable to reach the scene, it is recommended to mark the area and remove the vehicles. 12The value of an individual's life is immeasurable, and no amount of punishment can compensate for the loss of life. In the case of 'National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi'13, the Supreme Court of India supports the standardization of compensation for prospects following Article 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988. Currently, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) provides ₹50,000 for injuries and ₹5 lakhs for death. Victims may also receive compensation from insurance companies if applicable. Under the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS), medical expenses are covered without limit and on a cashless basis for central government officials, but other officials and employees do not have access to similar schemes.
When it comes to punishments, it is a lengthy legal process, so the immediate priority for victims is to receive adequate compensation to support their families. This area is still unclear as it lacks comprehensive and consistent policies or laws. MENS REA Mens rea or guilty mind is necessary to establish criminal responsibility and is therefore a crucial component of a crime. The criminal negligence coming under the ambit of Section 106 of the BNS does not include the element of intention. In this case, negligence, recklessness, indifference or any other attitude based on a negligent or rash act is mens rea. Hence, in the case of Section 106, guilty mind means rash or negligent mind and not intentional mind. In the case of criminal negligence, mens rea is an essential ingredient because the issue raised here is whether or not the accused deserves to be imprisoned.
So, courts do consider the presence of mens rea in any form. 14In the case of criminal negligence, unlike civil law and law of torts presence of mens rea is necessary. TYPES OF ACTS AMOUNTING TO CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE Section 106(1) of the IPC contains two actions: rash act and negligent act. Prima facie, these two terms might seem similar. However, the terms "rash" and "negligent" have distinct meanings. The Supreme Court noted that a single action cannot be both rash and negligent. 12 Indradev Shukla & Sourabh Shukla, Section 106(1) & (2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS - 2nd Amendment) Act 2023 with 304-A Indian Penal Code 1860 – A Comparative Study Along with Practical Approach Towards Its Implementation, 12 Int'l J. Enhanced Res. Educ. Dev. 20 (2024).
13 National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, A.I.R. 2017 S.C. 5157 (India).
14 P.B. Desai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2014 SC 795.
1) Rash Act
A "rash act" refers to an action that involves recklessness. An action is considered reckless when it is done hastily and without careful consideration.A rash act consists of two parts; subjective and objective. In the subjective part, the offender intentionally takes a risk and can foresee the potential consequences, yet proceeds with the action. In the objective part, the offender fails to foresee the consequences of the action, even when a reasonable person would have. This objective aspect is similar to negligence, with recklessness being the broader category and negligence being a specific type. Rash acts are not intentional, but rather impulsive. However, if any part of a rash act is done intentionally, it must be done without care and caution to be considered a rash act.
2) Negligent Act
An act of negligence is one that a reasonable and careful person would not do, even with reasonable care and precaution. The term "act" also encompasses "omission. " In a case of culpable negligence, the perpetrator carries out an action without exercising proper care and caution and is unaware of or has no reason to anticipate the unlawful consequences of their action. Therefore, the accused individual does not have the intention to commit such an act. The Supreme Court, in Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan (2012)15, stated that “it is difficult to state with precision any mathematically exact formula by which negligence or lack of it can be infallibly measured in a given case. ” It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, as held by the Court.
PUNISHMENT FOR SECTION 106 OF THE BNS The punishment prescribed under Section 304A of the IPC, if a person is declared to be dead, is either imprisonment for a period of up to two years or a fine or both. The court ensures that the punishment will be directly proportional to the intensity of the crime committed by the accused person so that he or she is appropriately punished. For the first time, in the case of State through P. S. Lodhi Colony, New Delhi v. Sanjeev Nanda16, which is also known as the “BMW case”, the Supreme Court took a new method of punishing the convict by requiring him to serve the community which will beneficial for the society rather than sentencing them for imprisonment, as felt necessary by the court. Community service may
15 Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 2012 S.C. 2986 (India)
16 State Tr.P.S. Lodhi Colony, New Delhi v. Sanjeev Nanda, A.I.R. 2012 S.C. 3104 (India).
not be a punishment in the true sense. However, the convict giving something to the society will be appreciated by the society. The convict will also come out of his guilt or regret by doing the same.
CONCLUSION
Negligence in law, whether in the civil or criminal realm, plays a crucial role in determining accountability for actions that result in harm. The concept of negligence revolves around the failure to exercise reasonable care, leading to injury, damage, or even death. While civil negligence is primarily concerned with compensating the victim, criminal negligence aims to punish individuals whose actions demonstrate a reckless disregard for the safety of others. In criminal negligence, as defined under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the law addresses situations where an individual causes death through a rash or negligent act that does not amount to culpable homicide. This offence is punishable by imprisonment, fines or both. The key difference here is the absence of intent; the law focuses on recklessness or carelessness that results in fatal consequences.
Medical negligence is an area that overlaps civil and criminal law and is particularly complex. Courts have established that mere errors of judgment or lack of better alternatives do not automatically result in liability. In cases, of negligence, the presence of mens rea differentiates criminal liability from civil. Indian jurisprudence, through landmark cases and legal provisions like section 106 of the BNS, has evolved a better understanding of negligence that balances the need for accountability with fairness.