Contributory Negligence

Contributory negligence
Meaning
Contributory negligence as a defence
Rules to determine contributory negligence
The doctrine of alternative danger
Contributory negligence of children
The doctorine of identification
Composite negligence
Contributory Negligence and the Rule of Avoidable Losses
Contributory negligence, in law, behaviour that contributes to
one’s own injury or loss and fails to meet the standard
of prudence that one should observe for one’s own good.
Contributory negligence of the plaintiff is frequently pleaded in
defense to a charge of negligence. Historically the doctrine grew
out of distrust of juries, which have usually been more
sympathetic to plaintiffs in personal injury lawsuits. The policy of
not apportioning liability between parties to lawsuits (that is,
charging each with some fraction of the blame) also encouraged
the doctrine.
Rural Transport Service v Bezlum Bibi, 1980
Contributory negligence usually arises in a lawsuit in which a
plaintiff has accused a defendant of negligence. The
defendant may then charge the plaintiff with contributory
negligence. contributory negligence is the ignorance of due
care on the part of the plaintiff to avoid the consequences of
the defendant’s negligence. This concept is loosely based on
the maxim- “Volenti non fit injuria” (injury sustained
voluntarily). It means If a person is not taking due diligence in
order to avoid consequences resulting out from the
negligence of the defendant the liability of negligence will be
on both of them.
Sushma Mitra v madhya Pradesh State Road Transport
corporation, 1974
Klaus v east india hotels ltd
Agya kaur v pepsu transport corporation, 1980
How far contributory negligence a defence
Butterfield v Forrester, 1809
The last opportunity Rule

Davies v Mann, 1882
British Columbia Electric co v Loach, 1916
Law Reform (contributory Negligence)Act, 1945

Doctrine of apportionment of Damages In India
Rural Transport Service v Bezlum Bibi, 1980
Vidya devi v M.p. Road Transport corpn, 1974
Principles
If the plaintiff is himself negligent for taking due care in order to
avoid consequences and becomes the direct cause of the
damages, he is not entitled to receive any compensation.
If both the plaintiff and the defendant have taken reasonable

measure and ordinary care to such extent where they both
wanted to avoid such consequences then the plaintiff can’t sue
the defendant.
Bhagawat swarup v himalaya gas co
It is not enough to show that the plaintiff did not take due care
of his own safety but it has also to be proved that it is his lack of
care that has contributed to the damage. If the defendant’s
negligence would have caused the same damage even if the
plaintiff had not been careful and the plaintiff’s negligence is
not the operative cause of accident
Agya Kaur v Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, 1980
The doctorine of alternative danger
Although the plaintiff is supposed to be careful in spite of the
defendant’s negligence, there may be circumstances when the
plaintiff is justified in taking some risk where some dangerous
situation has been created by the defendant. The plaintiff might
become perplexed or nervous and to save his person, property ,
and something to save a third person from the danger, he may take
an alternative risk
Jones v Boyce, 1816
Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council, 1958
contributory negligence of children

M.P.S.R.T.Corpn v Abdul Rahman, 1997
The doctorine of identification
The defence of contributory negligence can be taken not only
when the plaintiff himself has been negligent but also when
there is negligence on part of the plaintiff’s servant or agent.
Bernina mills v Armstrong, 1881
Children in custody of adults

Oliver v Birmingham and Midland Omnibus co, 1933
Composite negligence
At common law, if the defendant proves this
charge by a preponderance of evidence, the
plaintiff cannot recover any damages—even if
the defendant was negligent—because the
contributory negligence breaks the causal
connection between defendant’s negligence
and plaintiff’s injury or loss. In English
law since the Law Reform (Contributory
Negligence) Act (1945) and in many states in
the United States, if the plaintiff is shown to
have contributed to the injury, recovery may
still be allowed, but provision is made for an
equitable reduction of damages.
Contributory negligence should be
distinguished from several other doctrines
often applied in negligence cases: assumption
of risk, which relieves the defendant of an
obligation of due care toward the plaintiff
when the latter voluntarily exposes himself to
certain dangers; last clear chance, which
allows the plaintiff to recover even though
contributorily negligent—if the defendant had
the last clear chance to avoid the mishap.
•Contributory negligence means
•Composite negligence means
ignorance on the part of the
‘omission of an act’ from the
plaintiff in order to avoid the
part of two or more wrongdoer
consequences arising from the
which resulted in the injury of
negligence of the defendant.
the plaintiff.
•Both plaintiff and defendant are
•Wrongdoers or the defendants
held responsible.
are jointly liable.
•There is a proximate relation
•There’s no such relation
between the acts of the plaintiff
between the plaintiff and the
and defendant.
defendants.
•Both the plaintiff and the
•Wrongdoers are liable to pay for
defendant are liable to pay for
the injury sustained by the
the damages.
plaintiff.
•Claim for damages by the
•Claim for damages is not
plaintiff is reduced to the extent
reduced to an exten
of his proportion of negligence.

Contributory Negligence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contributory Negligence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contributory Negligence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the key differences between contributory negligence and composite negligence?

What are some circumstances where the plaintiff may be justified in taking some risk according to the doctrine of alternative danger?

Contributory negligence

The last opportunity Rule

Law Reform (contributory Negligence)Act, 1945

If both the plaintiff and the defendant have taken reasonable

contributory negligence of children

Children in custody of adults

You might also like