Question

In which of the following situations, a professional would be held liable for negligence:

• A. If 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.
• B. If he failed to use exceptional or extraordinary precautions which might have prevented the damage (particular happening).
• C. Both (A) and (B).
• D. Neither (A) nor (B).
• A. The jurisprudential concept of negligence differs in civil law and criminal law.
• B. What may be negligence in civil law may not necessarily be negligence in criminal law.
• C. For an act to amount to criminal negligence, the degree of negligence should be much higher, i.e. gross or of a very high degree.
• D. For negligence to amount to both a 'tort' and an 'offence', the element of mens rea must necessarily be shown to have existed.
• A. That of an ordinary and reasonably competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession.
• B. That of a person with the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices.
• C. That of a person with the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices, and possessing the knowledge of all latest developments.
• D. Both (B) and (C).
• A. That, there is a usual and normal practice; and the medical practitioner (defendant) has not adopted it.
• B. That, the course in fact adopted by the medical practitioner (defendant) is one, which no professional man of ordinary skill would have taken, had he been acting with ordinary care.
• C. Both (A) and (B).
• D. Neither (A) nor (B).
• A. Where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.
• B. Where things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference of another.
• C. Both (A) and (B).
• D. Neither (A) nor (B).

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks for the conditions under which a medical professional would be considered negligent and held liable.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The passage provides a clear answer. It states: "A medical professional may be held liable for negligence only when he is not possessed with the requisite qualification or skill or when he fails to exercise reasonable skill which he possesses in giving the treatment."
Let's evaluate the options:
(A) This option is a direct and accurate restatement of the conditions mentioned in the passage. A doctor can be liable either for lacking the skill they claim to have or for having the skill but failing to apply it with reasonable care. This is the correct basis for liability.
(B) This option suggests liability for failing to use "exceptional or extraordinary precautions." This is incorrect. The law holds a professional to a standard of "reasonable care," not the highest possible standard or an exceptional one. The standard is that of an ordinary competent practitioner.
(C) Since (B) is incorrect, this option is also incorrect.
(D) Since (A) is correct, this option is incorrect.
Step 3: Final Answer:
A professional would be held liable under the circumstances described in option (A).

Answer 2

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks to identify the incorrect statement that compares negligence in civil law (tort) and criminal law (offence).
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
(A) This is correct. Civil negligence is the breach of a duty of care causing damage. Criminal negligence requires a much higher degree of fault, showing a wanton or reckless disregard for human life and safety.
(B) This is correct. Because the standard for criminal negligence is higher, an act of simple carelessness might constitute a civil tort but would not be sufficient to attract criminal liability.
(C) This is correct. The Supreme Court in cases like Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab has repeatedly held that for a doctor to be held criminally liable (e.g., under Sec 304A IPC), the negligence must be "gross" or "reckless" to a very high degree.
(D) This is incorrect. Negligence, both as a tort and as a criminal offence, is fundamentally about a failure to exercise care; it is characterized by the absence of a particular state of mind (i.e., carelessness or inadvertence). It does not require mens rea (a guilty mind, such as intention or knowledge). While most crimes require mens rea, negligence is an exception where the fault lies in the conduct itself, not in the mental state. Therefore, it is not necessary to show mens rea for an act of negligence to be both a tort and an offence.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The proposition that mens rea must be shown for negligence to be both a tort and an offence is incorrect.

Answer 3

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks for the legal standard or "yardstick" used to assess whether a professional (like a doctor) has been negligent.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The established legal standard for professional negligence is based on the "Bolam test" from the English case Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee. This test, which is followed in India, sets the standard of care as that of a reasonable professional in the same field.
(A) This option accurately describes the Bolam test. The professional is judged against their peers of ordinary skill and competence, not against the best in the field. The passage supports this by referring to "acceptable practice" and "reasonable care".
(B) This sets the standard too high. The law does not expect every professional to have the "highest level of expertise."
(C) This sets an even more impossibly high standard by requiring knowledge of "all latest developments." While professionals are expected to keep reasonably up-to-date, they are not expected to know everything instantly.
(D) Since (B) and (C) are incorrect, this option is also incorrect.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The correct yardstick is that of an ordinary and reasonably competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession.

Answer 4

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks what needs to be proven to establish that a deviation from normal practice amounts to negligence.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
To prove negligence based on deviation from a standard practice, a plaintiff must establish two things:
1. The existence of a normal practice: First, it must be shown what the "usual and normal practice" is in such cases. Without establishing a baseline, one cannot prove a deviation. This corresponds to option (A).
2. The unreasonableness of the deviation: Second, it must be proven that the deviation was not just different, but was one that no reasonable practitioner would have undertaken. This means the chosen course of action fell below the minimum standard of care. This corresponds to option (B), which is a key part of the legal test for negligence (the Bolitho gloss on the Bolam test).
Therefore, to successfully establish liability, both elements must be shown. It's not enough to just show a deviation (A); the deviation must be shown to be negligent (B).
Step 3: Final Answer:
Both requirements (A) and (B) must be shown to establish liability for negligence based on a deviation from normal practice.

Answer 5

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks to identify a situation where a medical practitioner would NOT be held liable for negligence.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Let's analyze the options:
(A) This option describes the very definition of medical negligence. If a practitioner's conduct falls below the standard of a reasonably competent peer, they are liable. So this is a situation of liability, not non-liability.
(B) This option describes situations that are generally accepted as valid defenses to a negligence claim. The law does not expect perfection. Medicine is not an exact science, and an "error of judgment" in choosing between two or more accepted and reasonable courses of treatment is not negligence, even if the outcome is not ideal. Similarly, "mischance or misadventure" implies an unforeseeable accident rather than a lack of care. The passage supports this by stating, "...an error of judgment or an accident is not sufficient proof of negligence...". Therefore, a practitioner would not be held liable in this situation.
(C) This is incorrect because (A) describes a situation of liability.
(D) This is incorrect because (B) correctly describes a situation of non-liability.
Step 3: Final Answer:
A medical practitioner would not be held liable where the negative outcome was due to an error of judgment in choosing between reasonable options, or due to a mischance or misadventure.