Negligence — the Two Theories — KSLU Jurisprudence Notes

Negligence — the Two Theories

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Negligence"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["Subjective (Salmond):<br/>a state of mind —<br/>careless indifference"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> B["Objective (Pollock):<br/>conduct — failure to meet<br/>the reasonable-man standard"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> C["Modern law: objective test<br/>duty + breach + damage<br/>(Donoghue v. Stevenson 1932)"]:::leaf

    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

The essay turns on the duel: Salmond treats negligence as a mental attitude (indifference), Pollock as conduct measured against the reasonable man — and the law follows Pollock: liability requires a duty of care (Donoghue v. Stevenson, 1932 — the neighbour principle), breach of the objective standard, and resulting damage.