The Negligence Principles Elements and Evolving Defenses
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.545Keywords:
Negligence, Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Causation, Comparative Negligence, Assumption of Risk, Artificial Intelligence LiabilityAbstract
ABSTRACT
Civil liability for carelessly caused harm rests on one of the most foundational doctrines in modern law. This article examines the core elements of negligence duty of care, breach, causation, and damages and critically analyzes their evolving defenses, including comparative negligence, contributory negligence, and assumption of risk. Despite its long doctrinal history, negligence law continues to generate significant judicial inconsistency, overlapping elements, and unresolved questions about the allocation of fault between parties. This research adopts a qualitative doctrinal methodology, drawing on peer-reviewed journal articles, judicial decisions, and official legislative sources published between 2020 and 2025. The findings reveal that the core elements remain doctrinally unsettled, that traditional defenses have undergone significant transformation across jurisdictions, and that existing negligence principles are structurally inadequate for addressing liability arising from artificial intelligence and technology-driven harm. This article proposes an integrated analytical framework connecting negligence principles with their evolving defenses to guide future judicial and legislative reform.
References
Abraham, K. S., & Sharkey, C. M. (2027). Untangling AI liability. California Law Review, 115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6293099
Adar, Y. (2012). Comparative negligence and mitigation of damages: Two doctrines in search of reunion. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2078874 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2078874
Adar, Y., & Perry, R. (2023). Negligence without harm. Georgetown Law Journal, 111(2), 221–294. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4038781
Adejumo, O. A., & Adejumo, O. A. (2020). Legal perspectives on liability for medical negligence and malpractices in Nigeria. Pan African Medical Journal, 35, 44. https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2020.35.44.16651 DOI: https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2020.35.44.16651
Ahmed, R. (2021). The standard of the reasonable person in determining negligence—Comparative conclusions. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 24, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2021/v24i0a8631 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2021/v24i0a8631
AllahRakha, N. (2022). Analysis of the primary components contributing to the growth of the digital economy. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4286088 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4286088
AllahRakha, N. (2023). The impacts of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on business and its regulatory challenges. International Journal of Law and Policy, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.23 DOI: https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.23
AllahRakha, N. (2024). Addressing barriers to cross-border collection of e-evidence in criminal investigations. International Journal of Law and Policy, 2(6), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.193 DOI: https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.193
Anderson, J. E. (1973). The defense of assumption of risk under comparative negligence. St. Mary’s Law Journal, 5(4), Article 2. https://commons.stmarytx.edu/thestmaryslawjournal/vol5/iss4/2
Ayres, I., & Balkin, J. (2024). The law of AI is the law of risky agents without intentions. University of Chicago Law Review Online. https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/2024-11/Ayres_Balkin_Law%20of%20Risky%20Agents.pdf DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4862025
Bagaric, M., & Erbacher, S. (2011). Causation in negligence: From anti-jurisprudence to principle—Individual responsibility as the cornerstone for the attribution of liability. Journal of Law and Medicine, 18(4), 759–772.
Bublick, E. (2022). Tort common law future: Preventing harm and providing redress to the uncounted injured. Journal of Tort Law, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/jtl-2022-0010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jtl-2022-0010
Choi, B. H. (2024). AI malpractice. DePaul Law Review, 73, 301–366.
Delacroix, S. (2022). Professional responsibility: Conceptual rescue and plea for reform. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 42(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqab010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqab010
Dongen, E. van, & Verdam, H. P. (2016). The development of the concept of contributory negligence in English common law. Utrecht Law Review, 12(1), 61. https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.326 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.326
Dorfman, A. (2014). Assumption of risk, after all. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/til-2014-0203 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/til-2014-0203
Dwike, A., Efrila, E., & Prasetyo, B. (2025). Revisiting the legal implications of medical malpractice: A case study in Indonesia. Ranah Research Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development, 7(5), 3775–3788. https://doi.org/10.38035/rrj.v7i5.1696 DOI: https://doi.org/10.38035/rrj.v7i5.1696
Edelman, P. H. (2007). What are we comparing in comparative negligence? Washington University Law Review, 85(1), 73–99.
Epoch AI. (2025, December 9). Machine learning trends. https://epoch.ai/trends
Ghias, S. A. (2010). Miscarriage of chief justice: Judicial power and the legal complex in Pakistan under Musharraf. Law & Social Inquiry, 35(4), 985–1022. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2010.01211.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2010.01211.x
Ghritlahare, A. (2026). Privacy and data security in artificial intelligence systems: A comprehensive analysis of mass data collection, surveillance risks, and data breach vulnerabilities. International Journal of Versatile Research and Analysis, 4(6), 579–651. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20718649
Giannini, A., & Kwik, J. (2023). Negligence failures and negligence fixes: A comparative analysis of criminal regulation of AI and autonomous vehicles. Criminal Law Forum, 34(1), 43–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-023-09451-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-023-09451-1
Goudkamp, J. (2017). Breach of duty: A disappearing element of the action in negligence? The Cambridge Law Journal, 76(3), 480–483. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197317000721
Goudkamp, J. (2017). Breach of duty: A disappearing element of the action in negligence? The Cambridge Law Journal, 76(3), 480–483. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197317000721 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197317000721
Hamer, D. (2014). ‘Factual causation’ and ‘scope of liability’: What’s the difference? The Modern Law Review, 77(2), 155–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12063
Hamer, D. (2014). ‘Factual causation’ and ‘scope of liability’: What's the difference? The Modern Law Review, 77(2), 155–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12063 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12063
Harper, F. V. (1932). Foreseeability factor in the law of torts. Notre Dame Law Review, 7(4), 468–481. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol7/iss4/4
Horsey, K., & Rackley, E. (2019). Defences to negligence. In Tort law (pp. 289–314). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198829270.003.0010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198829270.003.0010
Idrees, F. (2024). Contributory negligence in torts: Jurisprudence and landmark cases. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4807130 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4807130
James, F., Jr. (1953). Contributory negligence. The Yale Law Journal, 62(5), 691–735. https://doi.org/10.2307/793502 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/793502
Knobe, J., & Shapiro, S. J. (2020). Proximate cause explained: An essay in experimental jurisprudence. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3544982 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3544982
Lubin, A. (2025). On software bugs and legal bugs: Product liability in the age of code. Indiana Law Journal, 100, 1891–1948. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5044381
Mashayekh, M., & Abbasi Sarmadi, M. (2025). From ancient healing to modern litigation: A historical journey through medical negligence and tort law. Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, 18, 19. https://doi.org/10.18502/jmehm.v18i19.20604 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/jmehm.v18i19.20604
Mead, J., & Pollack, M. (2016). Courts, constituencies, and the enforcement of fiduciary duties in the nonprofit sector. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 77(3), 281–346. https://doi.org/10.5195/lawreview.2016.404 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/lawreview.2016.404
Minaee, S., Mikolov, T., Nikzad, N., Chenaghlu, M., Socher, R., Amatriain, X., & Gao, J. (2025). Large language models: A survey. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.06196
Moch, E. (2024). Liability issues in the context of artificial intelligence: Legal challenges and solutions for AI-supported decisions. East African Journal of Law and Ethics, 7(1), 214–234. https://doi.org/10.37284/eajle.7.1.2518 DOI: https://doi.org/10.37284/eajle.7.1.2518
Nelson, E. L. (2021). Commentary: Some questions about no-fault reform of the medical liability system. Healthcare Policy, 17(1), 42–47. https://doi.org/10.12927/hcpol.2021.26579 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12927/hcpol.2021.26579
Nolan, D., & Oliphant, K. (2023). Causation and scope of liability. In Lunney & Oliphant’s tort law (pp. 227–295). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198865117.003.0005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198865117.003.0005
Rakha, N. A. (2023). The role of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in sports: The integration of IT in sports and the future of online gaming. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 26(Special Issue 4), 1–9.
Sajadieh, S., Maslej, N., Fattorini, L., Perrault, R., Gil, Y., & others. (2026). AI Index 2026 annual report. Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. https://hai.stanford.edu/assets/files/ai_index_report_2026.pdf
Selbst, A. D. (2020). Negligence and AI’s human users. Boston University Law Review, 100(4), 1315–1376.
Sharma, C. (2025). AI’s Hippocratic oath. Washington University Law Review, 102, 1101–1159.
Spengler, J. O., & Connaughton, D. P. (2010). A quantitative approach to assessing legal outcomes in reported sport and recreation negligence cases involving assumption of risk. Entertainment Law, 2(3), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/1473098042000275800 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1473098042000275800
Steel, S. (2015). Probabilistic liability. In Proof of causation in tort law (pp. 290–369). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316104511 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107273689.008
Su, C. (2025). From negligence to risk management: A comparative policy-based critique of the assumption of risk doctrine. Journal of Humanities Arts and Social Science, 9(4), 762–767. https://doi.org/10.26855/jhass.2025.04.017 DOI: https://doi.org/10.26855/jhass.2025.04.017
Thornton, R. G. (2001). Utilizing causation. Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center), 14(4), 455–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2001.11927801 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2001.11927801
Udemezue, S., & Ojeih, C. A. (2021). A critical analysis of the role of courts in determining breach of duty of care in the law of torts. SSRN Electronic Journal, 7(57). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3840080 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3840080
Wright, R. W. (1985). Causation in tort law. California Law Review, 73(6), 1735–1828. https://doi.org/10.2307/3480373 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3480373
Zhao, W. X., Zhou, K., Li, J., Tang, T., Wang, X., Hou, Y., Min, Y., Zhang, B., Zhang, J., Dong, Z., Du, Y., Yang, C., Chen, Y., Chen, Z., Jiang, J., Ren, R., Li, Y., Tang, X., Liu, Z., ... Wen, J.-R. (2026). A survey of large language models. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.18223 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-026-60308-3
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Muhammad Umar Mian
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
