“Negligence”, “Culpable Rashness” and “Culpable Negligence”

“Negligence” means omission to do something which a reasonable and prudent person guided by the consideration which ordinarily regulate human affairs would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable person guided by similar considerations would not do. Negligence is not an absolute term but is a relative one; it is rather a comparative term. 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. Whether there exists negligence per se or the course of conduct amounts to negligence will normally depend upon the attending and surrounding facts and circumstances which have to be taken into consideration by the court. In a give case, even doing what one was ought to do can constitute negligence.
“Culpable Rashness” is acting with the consciousness that mischievous and illegal consequences may follow but with the hope that they will not and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite consciousness (luxuria).
“Culpable negligence” is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischevious effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the action incumbent upon him and that if he had, he would have had the consciousness. The imputability arises from the neglect of civil duty of circumspection. Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 9 SCC 284.


Leave a comment

Filed under Negligence

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s