Contributory Negligence

1 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

PROJECT WORK ON LAW OF

TORTS

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY

SUBMITTED TO:

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY


Mr. SHAIWAL SATYARTHI

SUBMITTED BY:

VIBHANSHU

SRIVASTAVA

ROLL NO. 375

BA.LL.B(Hons . ) 1 S T YEAR(1 S T SEM.)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all I want to thank GOD for enabling me to

successfully complete this project.

Then I would like to give my sincere thanks to our respected

Law of Torts faculty, Mr. Shaiwal Satyarthi, who has guided me all

the way in completing this project.

Then I would like to give thanks to our librarians who have

helped me all the way in searching through the source materials

which help me a lot in completing this project.

The list couldn’t be completed without thanking all my friends

who have encouraged me in successful accomplishment of this

project.

VIBHANSHU SRIVASTAVA

ROLL NO. 375



B.A,L.L.B.(Hons.)

1ST semester

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1) I N T R O D U C T I O N … … … … … … … … … … … . . . . . . . 0 5

2) G E N E R A L P R I N C I P L E S … … … … … … … . . … … . 0 6

3 ) L A S T O P P O R T U N I T Y R U L E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 7

4) CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF CHILDREN..…... 1 1

5 ) C O N C L U S I O N . … … … … . . … . . … … … … … … 1 3

6 ) B I B L I O G R A P H Y … … … … … … … … … … … . 1 4



SUBJECT: Law of Torts.

TOPIC: Contributory Negligence.

OBJECTIVES:

1. To understand the provision related to Contributory Negligence.

2. To analyze the various principles of contributory negligence.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: Keeping the objectives in mind, material was

collected with the help of different books and then it was compiled to make the

theoretical part of the project. Recent and important case laws are analyzed.

RESEARCH TOOLS: The research of this project was carried with the help of

the Internet and Library of Chanakya National Law University.



FOOTNOTING STYLE: In whole of my project uniform footnoting style is

adopted in conformity Chanakya National Law University, Patna footnoting style.

Introduction

Etymological Meaning-

The negligence of a person which, while not being the primary cause of a tort,

nevertheless combined with the act or omission of the primary defendant to

cause the tort, and without which the tort would not have occurred.

Contributory negligence is a common law defense to a claim

based on negligence, an action in tort. It applies to cases where a plaintiff has,

through his own negligence, contributed to the harm he suffered. For example, a

pedestrian crosses a road negligently and is hit by a driver who was driving

negligently.

Contributory negligence differs from contribution, which is a claim brought by one

tortfeasor against another to recover some or all of the money damages awarded to

the plaintiff.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defendant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contribution_claim_(legal)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_(legal)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law


GENERAL PRINCIPLES

In trying claim arising out of death or injury caused by negligence, the court may

be faced with a situation where both the parties were negligent in some respect.

The court is then to decide as to whose negligence caused the death or injury.

There are three possible answers to such an query depending upon the

circumstances of the case.

I. The defendant’s negligence alone caused the death or injury.

II. The deceased’s or the plaintiff’s negligence was solely responsible the death

or injury.

III. The negligence of both the parties caused the death or injury.

It is obvious that if the finding is that the defendant’s negligence alone caused the

the death or injury, then the plaintiff would succeed even if the plaintiff or the

deceased was negligent in some respect. Similarly, if there is no difficulty in

holding that the plaintiff will fail if the deceased’s or his negligence was solely

responsible for the death or injury, as the case maybe even if defendant was in

some respect was negligent. In the third case, where the negligence of both the

parties caused the death or injury, the common law rule was that the plaintiff was

to fail even if the defendant was more at fault. In other words, if the deceased’s



negligence contributed in some degree to the death or injury, the defendant

succeeded by pleading contributory negligence irrespective of the fact that death or

injury was largely caused by the defendant’s negligence. The defence of

contributory negligence means that the defendant or the plaintiff failed to take the

reasonable care of his own safety which was a material contributory to his death or

injury.1As the defence enabled the defendant to escape completely even when he

was more at fault, the courts were slow to infer that the negligence of the plaintiff

was a contributory factor.

THE LAST OPPORTUNITY RULE

The Courts devised the Last Opportunity Rule which meant that if the defendant

had the last opportunity to avoid the accident resulting in injury he was held solely

responsible for the injury in spite of the fact that the plaintiff was also

negligent.2This rule was further extended to cover cases of constructive last

opportunity.3 A more rational approach was made in cases involving maritime

collisions where the courts had the opportunity apportioning the damages under the

1 Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v Laxman Iyer,(2003) 8 SCC 731, p. 737.2 Davies v. Mann : (1842) 10 M7W 546 : 62 RR 698 is often referred to as the originator of the rule though the words ‘last opportunity’ do not occur there. The plaintiff in this case fettered the forefeet of his donkey and turned it into a narrow lane. It was run over by a heavy wagon not properly looked after longing to the defendant. The wagon was going a little too fast and was not properly looked after by the driver. In suit for damages, the plaintiff succeeded as the defendant by using ordinary care could have avoided the accident even though the plaintiff was also at fault in turning the donkey into the lane with its forefeet fettered. 3 British Columbia Electric Ry. V. Loach (1916) 1 AC 719



Maritime Conventions Act, 1911. In Admiralty Commissioners v. S.S volute4 a

collision had occurred between merchant ship volute and the destroyer Radstock.

The volute was at fault in changing her course without giving any proper signal

and the Radstock was at fault in increasing speed although she had the

knowledge of the danger caused by the change of course of Volute. It was held

that both the ships were responsible for the collision even though the last

opportunity for avoiding the accident was with the Radstock. The decision in the

case of Volute was followed by the HOUSE OF LORDS in a non-maritime collision

case and was regarded as one of general application.5 In this case a crossroad

collision between car and a motorcycle was occurred. Who was negligent in this

action was not clear. The HOUSE OF LORDS held that that it was a sufficient

direction. The defendant in this case while driving the car at about thirty miles an

hour along a main road, approached a point in the road without keeping a proper

look out or slowing down where it was crossed by a side road, when a man driving

a motorcycle came into the road into the side road without warning and a

collision occurred in which the motor cyclist was killed. In a suit for the the

damages filed by the widow of the deceased, the defendant was not held liable

under the common rule as the deceased was also negligent. The case lays down 4 (1922) 1 AC 129:38 TLR 255:126 LT 425:66 SJ 156 (HL). The Maritime Conventions Act, 1911, applies to India. Under this act where by the fault of two or more vessels, damage or loss is caused to one or more of them, to their cargoes, or freight or to any property on board, the liability to make good the damage or loss shall be in proportion to the degree in which each vessel was in fault, the liability shall be apportioned equally. Where loss of life or personal injuries are suffered by any person on board of a vessel owing to the fault of that vessel and any other vessels or vessel, the liability of the owner of the vessels shall be joint and several subject to any defence which could have been pleaded to an action for the death or personal injury inflicted.

5 American Main Line Ltd. V. Afrika, AIR 1937 PC 168



that where the negligence of parties is contemporaneous as so nearly

contemporaneous as to make it impossible to say that either could have avoided

the consequences of others negligence, it would be said that negligence of both

contributed to the accident. Had it been a case of maritime collision the court

could have apportioned the damages as in case of Volute. But the question of

contributory negligence has all cases to be decided on same principles.

The common law rule is that if the plaintiff’s or the deceased’s (in case of death)

negligence contributed in some degree to the injury or death, the action failed, was

illogical and its origin lay possibly in procedural and pleading anomalies of the

common law.6The Madhya Pradesh case of Vidya Devi contains an elaborate

discussion why the principle of English Act should be followed in India even

though there is no corresponding act in India.7The Supreme Court without any

6 LORD WRIGHT, 13 Modern Law Review 5; Vidyadevi v. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation,1974 ACJ 374 (MP) 89

7 Vidyadevi v. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, supra : In this case there was a collision between a bus and a motorcycle at a road intersection when the bus was going on the main road and the motorcycle came from a side road. The person riding the motor cycle was killed. In a claim for damages by the



reference to the English act, has held that “it is now well settled that in case of

contributory negligence, courts have the power to apportion the loss between the

parties as seems just and equitable.

widow and the children it was found that the bus driver was negligent in not having a proper look out while approaching the intersection and the deceased was negligent as he was driving at excessive speed while coming from the side road to the intersection.It was further held that negligence of both the parties was liable for the accident but the motorcyclist was far more to blame than the bus driver. The responsibility was apportioned in form of two-third and one-third.



In Municipal corporation grater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer 8, the deceased who was riding a bicycle came from the left side and took right turn contrary to traffic regulations. At that time he was hit by corporation bus which was running at a moderate speed and the deceased was visible from a distance of 30 feet. It was found that the deceased was negligent in taking a wrong turn contrary to traffic regulations and the bus driver was negligent in not stopping the bus by quickly applying the brakes and in omitting to blow the horn. The deceased’s negligence was held to have 25% contributed to the damage and the compensation was reduced to that extent.

The act applies when the plaintiff’s act contributes to the ‘the damage’

and not necessarily to the accident which results in damage although in most of the

cases it would be so. Thus the damage would be reduced if a motorcyclist involved

in an accident and suffering a head injury did not wear a crash helmet. 9 It may be

noticed that a omission to wear a helmet is not negligence contributing to the

accident but only to the damage suffered in the accident. This example also

illustrates that for being responsible for contributory negligence the plaintiff need

not be in breach of duty to the defendant. The question simply is whether the

plaintiff or the deceased had failed to take reasonable care of his own safety which

had contributed to the damage.10 As observed by BALAKRISHNAN, J.

“Negligence ordinarily means breach of a legal duty to care, but when used in

expression contributory negligence it does not mean breach of any duty. It only

means the failure by a person to use reasonable care for the safety of himself or his

property, so that he becomes the ‘author of his own wrong’”8 (2003) 8 SCC 7319 Oconell v. Jackson, (1972) 1 QB 270 : (1971) 3 A11 ER 129; (Damages were reduces by fifteen percent)10 Sushma Mitra v. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, 1974 ACJ 87 (MP) pp, 92, 95



CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF

CHILDREN

The rule as to contributory negligence is not inflexibly applied in cases where

young children are concerned. Allowance is made for their inexperience and

infirmity of judgement.11 The correct principle is that the children do not form a

separate category either for deciding whether the defendant any duty to the child

plaintiff and was guilty of negligence being in breach of that duty, or for deciding

whether the child plaintiff was guilty of negligence, but in deciding both these

questions, the age of the child plaintiff and the experience and the intelligence of

ordinary children of that age are to be taken into account with other relevant

information. The madras High Court had held that the children capable of

discrimination and perceiving danger can be guilty of contributory negligence. In

this case a girl of seven years was knocked down by an engine while she was

crossing the railway track after passing through a wicket gate. It was held that the

proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the girl as she was old

enough in apportioning the danger.12 But a child of six, standing near a footpath

11 Lynch v. Nurdin, (1841) 1 QB 29 : 5 Jur 797 : 55 RR 19112 M. & S.M. Railway company ltd. V. Jayammal,(1942) ILR 48 MAD 417



when knocked down by a lorry13 and the child of same age when knocked down by

a motor vehicle while trying to cross a road14 will not be held guilty of contributory

negligence for the children of that age do not have adequate road sense. Similarly,

a child of four years was not held guilty of contributory negligence in accepting a

ride on motor cycle driven by his uncle with another person sitting on pillion.15

By an untrue statement a boy aged nine years who was accompanied by

his brother aged seven, prevailed on an employee of the defendant company to sell

him a small quantity of petrol. The children wanted the petrol for use in a game in

which they enacted a Red Indian scene they had witnessed a cinematograph

theatre. In the result, the boy was seriously burned. It was held that a Privy Council

that the defendants having an explosive substance to a boy who had limited

knowledge of the likelihood of an explosion and its possible effect, and the boy

having done that which a child of his age might be expected to do, the defendants

could not avail themselves of the defence of contributory negligence, that the

employee’s negligence contributed to cause injuries suffered by the boy and that

they were liable.16

13 R. Srinivasa v. K.M Parsivamurthy, AIR 1976 Karnataka 92.14 Motias Costa v. Roque Augustihno jacinto 15 M.P. State Road transport corporation v. Abdul Rahman, Supra16 Yachuk v. Oliver Blais, (1949) AC 386 : (1949) 2 A11 ER 150 : 65 TLR 300



CONCLUSION

Thus, contributory negligence is a good defence available with the defendant

wherein, he can show some negligence on part of the plaintiff and this helps a lot

to the defendant as the amount of compensation to be paid is reduced to great

extent or even becomes nil. Where "contributory negligence" principles are

applied, if the plaintiff in any way contributed to his or her own injury, the plaintiff

is barred from recovering damages. The extreme consequence of this approach has

led to its being limited or abandoned in many jurisdictions.

Since, this defense was utilized by the defendants in all the cases of

negligence, the last opportunity rule was brought in place wherein whoever among

the defendant and the plaintiff had the last opportunity to prevent the accident from

happening was held liable.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lal, Ratan and Jatan.The Law of Torts. Wadhwa and

Company : Nagpur 2006.


Documents

Contributory Negligence