Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulaben Jayantilal Nakum, 1997(9) SCC 552, issue was regarding the omission on the part of the local authority to remove a tree from a public road. The tree later fell on the plaintiff's husband who was passing by the road resulting in his death. The High Court had decreed compensation but this court allowed the appeal and dismissed the claim holding that no breach of statutory duty was involved.The decree of liability depends on degree of mental element. The elements of tort of negligence consist in - (a) duty of care; (b) duty is owed to the plaintiff; (c) the duty has been carelessly breached. Negligence does not entail liability unless the law exacts a duty in the given circumstances to observe care. Duty is an obligation recognised by law to avoid conduct fraught with unreasonable risk of damage to others. The question whether duty exists in a particular situation involves determination of law. Negligence would in such acts and omissions involve an unreasonable risk to harm to others. The breach of duty causes damage and how much is the damage should be comprehended by the defendant. Remoteness is relevant and compensation on proof thereof requires consideration. The element of carelessness in the breach of the duty and those duties towards the plaintiff are important components in the tort of negligence. Negligence would mean careless conduct in commission or omission of an act connoting duty, breach and the damage thereby suffered by the person to whom the plaintiff owes. Duty of care is, therefore, crucial to understand the nature and scope of the tort of negligence. The degree of carelessness in breach of duty would, therefore, vary from case to case and it should not unduly be extended or confined or limited or circumscribed to all situations.What constitutes carelessness is the conduct and not the result of inadvertence. Thus negligence in this sense is a ground for liability in tort. There is a distinction between failure to exercise a statutory power giving causation for damage by positive act of negligence by another and some accidental occurrence or by omission. The general rule is that the public authorities are liable for positive action (misfeasance) but not for omission (non-feasance).