1. Negligence is a word used in a dual sense: first, it is a attitude of mind (carelessness), and secondly, it is a tort in itself.
In the latter sense it signifies the breach (by the defendant) of a legal duty to take care not to injure the plaintiff or cause him loss; if such a duty is broken, and the plaintiff can show that he has been injured or that he has sufferedd loss as a result of the breach he will have a right of action ('on the case') against the defendant.

2. The duty of care
a) The reasonable foresight rule as developed in Donoghue v. Stephenson 1932:
aa) The liability for negligence is based upon a general sentiment or moral wrongdoing for which the offender must pay.
In law, not every breach of a moral duty will be treated so as to give a right to every person injured by them to de- mand refief.
bb) The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law: You must not injure your neighbor.
One must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure one's neighbour.
cc) The question: Who is my neighbour? receives in law a restricted reply. Those are persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.
b) Developement of the rule
aa) Reasonable foresight: there must be a reasonable probability that the harm will ensue from the act or omission 'called in question'.
bb) Directness: This variable can only be defined by the instances of its application:
Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. 1970 - prisoners escaping and damaging a yacht; the Home Office was responsible - it was 'close and direct' and also 'proximate'.
cc) Proximity, special relationship: Where the risk of an injury to some person is foreseeable, that of a specific person might not, given that the effect was not too proximate:
Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire 1989 - killer escaped and murdered a girl; no claim.
dd) Public policy might bar a claim
Rondel v. Worsley 1969 - no suit against a barrister in respect of his conduct in court (free speech).
Public policy might also have disbarred the claim in Hill's case (above) - no hampering of police investigations.
c) Further developements
Murphy v. Brentwood District Council 1991 - analogical approach instead of a general principal.
This approach was also taken in Caparo Industries plc. v. Dickman 1990.
d) Especially: careless mis-statements (Hedley Byrne rule)
aa) With the proximity test generally accepted, it must be added that often social and moral considerations, public policy, and quantitative judgements in terms of time and space must be observed. Moreover, the test cannot be applied to all kinds of situations. A certain social freedom in respect of mis-statement being generally accepted, and the fact that words are different from acts, will lead to the conclusion that a careless mis-statement will not always give rise to a claim.
bb) In Hedley Byrne Co. Ltd v. Heller & Partners Ltd. 1964 the House of Lords ruled that a claim may (!) lie on a careless mis-statement. But the mere probability of injury arising from a mis-statement will not always be enogh to found a claim.
cc) Later decisions regard the ratio decidendi in Hedley Burne as such that a claim lies,
(1) if the injury is foreseeable at the time when the statement was made,
(2) and if the defendant is someone possessed of a special skill (doctor, lawyer, architect),
(3) making the statement in the course of his business.
Mutual Life Citizens Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Evatt 1971 - the Privy Council held that a statement by insurers about investments was not in the course of their business. But this cautious approach has not been followed by the English courts, who preferred to say that a statement need only be made in a business context to fall within the principle. For similar considerations in the law of contract, compare Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Mardon (1976)
(4) The plaintiff's reliance on the statement must be reasonable, i.e. highly likely:
Caparo Industries plc. v. Dickman 1990; Smith v. Bush 1990
The above rules might also apply where the defendant, not possessing such a skill as described above, misleads the plaintiff into thinking that he has.
dd) Misrepresentation may be actionable under the Hedley Byrne rule. The MA 1967 applies, though, only to mis-statements inducing the making of a contract.

3. Breach of duty
a) Negligence (carelessness) in its legal sense means failure to take such reasonable care as a reasonable man placed in the position of the defendant ought to have taken. This issue becomes 'Has the defendant's conduct failed to reach this standard'.
b) Reasonable care - this, of course, depends:
aa) The higher the risk, the higher the standard of care:
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. v. Miller SS Co. Pty. Ltd. (The Wagon Mound (No.2)) 1967 - although the probability is not great, the possible consequences required great care.
bb) Nature of the risk - blind people involved, necessity.
cc) Public interest - train, nuclear energy, etc.
dd) Physical cost, economic cost of preventing the injury.
c) The reasonable man - he has a house, a wife, two kids, works hard, goes to church regularly, doesn't swear, doesn't drink, you probably wouldn't like him if you met him. He's the man on the Clapham omnibus.
That man must be placed in all the circumstances of the defendant - reasonable bricklayer, busdriver, prostitute.
Also, lack of experience is a kind of negligence - imperitia culpae adnumerator. If an unskilled person undertakes something which requires skill he will be held responsible if he fails to attain the standard of such a person who has such skill.

4. Causation
a) In most torts that element is either assumed to exist or not to exist, in which case there can be no liability.
b) In negligence, it creates difficulty:
Independent intervening acts/causes (novus/nova actus/causa interveniens) may isolate the defendant's wrong from the damage. The question always is whether an intervening act/cause constitutes an independant cause which is operative:
McWilliams v. Sir William Arrol & Co. Ltd. 1962 - employers (defendants) had failed to supply their buddy with a safety belt he would not have worn anyway - no claim (though this is disputable).

5. Damage
a) This includes physical injury, damage to property.
b) Pure economic loss (that is, not arising from the above) is not recoverable, subject to exceptions.
Spartan Steel and Alloys Ltd. v. Martin & Co. Ltd. 1873 - loss arising from a machine was recoverable, lost profits (which mysteriously had arisen independently of the physical damage) were not.
Exceptions: cases that come under the Hedley Byrne principle (close relationship akin, though not restricted, to a contractual one).
c) Mental suffering:
Nervous shock, when suffered in immediate aftermath: McLoughlin v. O'Brian 1980 - car accident and shock.
Later narrowed in Hillsborough 1991 - Sheffield Stadium havoc; only when suffered within sight or hearing of the immediate aftermath and where there is a close relationship.

6. Burden of proof: res ipsa loquitur ('the thing speaks for itself').
In some cases the evidence points so strongly in favour of the plaintiff that it is presumed that the defendant has acted in a negligent manner.
Byrne v. Boadle 1863 - barrels falling off an open door in a warehouse; case went to the jury without further proof.
In such a case, the defendent must give an reasonable explanation - if he does so, the plaintiff bears the onus of establishing negligence.

7. Contributory negligence (statutory)
If the plaintiff's conduct has contributed to the injury, the claim will still succeed, but the damages awarded will be re- duced to such an extent as is 'fair and equitable' with regard to the claimant's share of responsibility for the damage.

8. Especially: Employers' liability
a) At common law: the employer has to take reasonable care for his servant's safety in all circumstances. This has been broken into a threefold aspect: a duty to provide competent staff, adequate plant and material, a safe system of work.
The employer needs to provide all of it.
b) Statutes: The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 cast some special duties on the employer.

9. Especially: Occupiers' liability
This is regulated in the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. They owe such a duty of care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises the premises for the purposes for which he is permitted by the occupier to be there.
With regard to transports in vehicles and such, common law rules remain (as if that would make a difference) - apart from contractual provisions.
The Act does not apply to trespassers - to them the duty of care is somewhat relaxed (nebulous common law rules).