Odger's English Common Law

488
NEGLIGENCE.
facts of each particular case. " There is no absolute or
intrinsic negligence ; it is always relative to some circum-
stances of time, place or person." 1 "The ideas of negli-
gence and duty are strictly correlative, and there is no such
thing as negligence in the abstract ;
negligence is simply the
neglect of some care which we are bound by law to exercise
towards somebody." 2
' Though the defendant's act be not in itself unlawful, he
may nevertheless be liable in damages, if he does it negli-
gently or in an unlawful manner. But he cannot be charged
with negligence if he took all reasonable care to prevent any
damage being caused to others by bis doing that lawful act.
The Legislature constantly, in the interests of the public,
authorises acts to be done which occasion loss or damage to
an individual. No action of tort will lie for such loss or
damage, if the acts which are thus legalised have been
performed with proper care. " When the Legislature has
sanctioned and authorised the use of a particular thing, and
it is used for the purpose for which it was authorised, and
every precaution has been observed to prevent injury, the
sanction of the Legislature carries with it this consequence,
that if damage results from the use of such thing, indepen-
dently of negligence, the party using it is not responsible.
It is consistent with policy and justice that it should be so." 3
But if these statutory powers be exceeded 4 or be exercised
negligently and damage ensue, an action will lie ; for the
Legislature does not authorise negligence. 5
Want of skill is not negligence. If a man is engaged to
write a book or paint a picture, and he devotes to the task
untiring industry and scrupulous care, and yet the result of
his labours is a failure through lack of mental ability or
manual skill, no action will lie. The person engaging him
1 Per Bramwell, B., in Degg v. Midland By. Co. (1857), 1 H. & N. at p. 781.
2 Per Bowen, L. J., in Thymus v. Quartermaine (1887), 18 Q. B. D. at p. 694.
s . Per Cockburn, C. J., in Vaughan v. Taff Vale Ry. Co. (1860), 5 H. & N. at p. 685 ;
and see Smith v. L. S,' S. W. Ry. Co. (1870), L. B. 6 C. P. 14 ; Powell v. Fall (1880), v *
5 Q. B. D. 597.
i Jones.?, Festiniog Ry. Co. ,
wzusCo., [1908] 2 K. B. 14.
(1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 733 ; West v. Bristol Tram-
6 See Hill v. Metropolitan Asylum District Board (1879), 4 Q. B. D • 441
(1881) 6 App. Cas. 193 ; and Sadler v. Staffordshire, *c, Tramways s Co (1889)'
K 'J.
22 Q. B. D. 17.