Contributory Negligence and its Defences
Contributory Negligence and Its Defences
1. What is Negligence?
Negligence refers to the failure to exercise reasonable care, resulting in damage or injury to another.
It is a fundamental principle in tort law and law of tortious liability.
2. What is Contributory Negligence?
Contributory negligence is a partial defense in negligence claims.
It arises when the injured party (plaintiff) is found to have, by their own negligence, contributed to the harm they suffered.
It means the plaintiff’s own carelessness or lack of reasonable caution contributed to causing the injury.
3. Legal Definition
Under Section 92 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (which is often applied in tort cases for contributory negligence):
"When a person suffers damage partly through his own fault and partly through the fault of another, the damage caused to him is not wholly caused by the other person and is not recoverable from him to the whole extent."
4. Effect of Contributory Negligence
If contributory negligence is proved, the defendant's liability is reduced in proportion to the plaintiff’s share of negligence.
It does not completely bar recovery (unlike the common law rule in some countries, which barred any recovery).
For example, if the plaintiff is 30% responsible and defendant 70%, damages will be reduced by 30%.
5. Illustration
Suppose a pedestrian crosses the road negligently (ignoring traffic signals) and gets hit by a speeding vehicle.
If the pedestrian was partially negligent, damages awarded will be reduced to reflect that.
6. Defences to Contributory Negligence
The defendant may raise contributory negligence as a defense to limit or avoid liability, but there are several key points:
a) Voluntary Assumption of Risk (Volenti non fit injuria)
The plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily accepts the risk.
Unlike contributory negligence, this is a complete defense.
Example: A spectator at a cricket match hit by a ball assumes the risk.
b) No Causal Connection
The defendant may argue the plaintiff’s negligence did not contribute causally to the injury.
c) Last Clear Chance Doctrine (not explicitly in Indian law but influential)
If defendant had the last opportunity to avoid the accident but failed, contributory negligence of plaintiff may be ignored.
7. Leading Case Law
a) Butterfield v. Forrester (1809) — English Common Law Case
Plaintiff was riding a horse negligently (too fast) and was injured by defendant’s obstruction.
Court held: Plaintiff’s own negligence barred recovery (common law strict rule).
This case illustrates the strict principle where contributory negligence was a complete bar (not Indian law, but foundational).
b) Suresh Chandra Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, AIR 1969 SC 1087
Supreme Court of India held that if plaintiff's negligence contributed to the accident, his compensation should be reduced proportionately.
This case laid down the principle that contributory negligence is a partial defense, not a complete bar.
c) Kamla Devi v. Delhi Transport Corporation, AIR 1968 SC 1205
The Court held that the defendant's negligence must be the proximate cause of the injury.
Contributory negligence of the plaintiff can reduce but not extinguish the liability.
d) Chinnappa Reddy, J. in A.K. Roy v. State of Punjab (AIR 1976 SC 2429)
Observed that contributory negligence reduces compensation but does not absolve the defendant completely unless the plaintiff’s negligence is predominant.
8. Application of Contributory Negligence
Applies widely in motor accident cases, personal injury claims, workplace accidents, and product liability.
Courts determine degree of fault based on facts and evidence.
Apportionment of negligence is a question of fact, decided case-by-case.
9. Important Distinctions
| Aspect | Contributory Negligence | Volenti Non Fit Injuria (Voluntary Assumption of Risk) |
|---|---|---|
| Effect | Partial defense; reduces damages | Complete defense; bars recovery |
| Plaintiff’s conduct | Carelessness contributing to injury | Knowledge and acceptance of risk |
| Burden of proof | On defendant to prove contributory negligence | On defendant to prove voluntary assumption of risk |
10. Summary
| Topic | Description |
|---|---|
| Definition | Plaintiff’s own negligence contributing to injury |
| Legal Basis | Section 92, Indian Contract Act, 1872 |
| Effect | Reduces compensation proportionally |
| Defenses | Voluntary assumption of risk, no causal link |
| Key Cases | Suresh Chandra Verma v. DTC, Kamla Devi v. DTC |
| Distinction | Different from complete defense of volenti non fit injuria |
RELATED Blog
0 comments