- Trending Categories
- Data Structure
- Operating System
- MS Excel
- C Programming
- Social Studies
- Fashion Studies
- Legal Studies
- Selected Reading
- UPSC IAS Exams Notes
- Developer's Best Practices
- Questions and Answers
- Effective Resume Writing
- HR Interview Questions
- Computer Glossary
- Who is Who
Contributory Negligence as a Defense in Tort Law
A common law tort provision known as "contributory negligence" prevents plaintiffs from being compensated for the negligence of others if they themselves were negligent in producing the harm. In many jurisdictions, comparative negligence has taken the position of contributory negligence.
Analysis of Contributory Negligence
Although the general idea of contributory negligence might be traced back to much earlier periods, the term became firmly understood for the first time around the beginning of the 19th century. Butterfield v. Forrester, (1807), is one of the most important legal precedents relating to this idea. Under common law, if the claimant's injury was caused in part by the defendant's negligence and in part by some other negligent act on his part in the first year of the development of contributory, he cannot be compensated for the harm that was done to him. Contributory negligence is important for both the calculation of damages and for clearing the defendant of liability. Contributory negligence requires that the negligence be the direct cause of the real harm in order to be considered such.
The plaintiff cannot file a claim for damages if the case's initial facts and evidence indicate that he caused the harm by engaging in negligent behavior (Novus actus interveniens). It is necessary to distinguish between the real causes and the situation, or between the causa sine qua and causa causans. The question of whether the conduct committed had the potential to expose the plaintiff directly to an area where he would be damaged must always be raised. If it did not, the plaintiff's negligence is viewed as contributory in character.
Even if the plaintiff proves the aforementioned conditions, in a country that applies contributory negligence, they are ineligible for damages. The level of the plaintiff's or defendant's respective carelessness is irrelevant for contributory negligence purposes, therefore a plaintiff who was 1% negligent will earn nothing from a defendant who was 99% negligent. The benefit of this "all or nothing" criterion is that it spares the courts from having to precisely assess how much each party contributed to the harm. Conversely, the use of contributory negligence may result in outcomes that society perceives unfair. Because to the all-or-nothing character of contributory negligence, courts have over the years established a number of exceptions to the rule. A negligent plaintiff, for instance, may nevertheless be entitled to compensation under the doctrine of last clear opportunity if the defendant was the only one who could have prevented the harm by reasonable means but chose not to do so.
The Significance of Contributory Negligence
As determining culpability is a necessary step in the processing of insurance claims, contributory negligence is crucial. You could, for instance, be a policyholder submitting an insurance claim to get compensated for an occurrence covered by your policy. In such a situation, the insurance provider must make sure they are responsible for the harm done. Also, insurance firms usually try to minimize their level of responsibility.
Insurers and courts examine behaviors to assess fault. How much the plaintiff can recover in damages under the insurance policy will be determined in part by this procedure. As was already indicated, insurers work to keep plaintiff recoveries to a minimum in order to preserve their profit margins. After such an examination, the insurers cannot stop the plaintiff from receiving the full amount of the insured claim if there is no proof of contributory negligence. Nonetheless, the plaintiff may receive less money or, in some situations, lose their right to sue if the injured party was partly to blame for the losses that happened.
One who can see, or who could have seen if he had looked like a prudent man, and who is aware of the danger to which he is exposed and who is familiar with the entire scenario, fails to act in a way that a reasonable and prudent man would under certain circumstances, and this results in negligence on his part, which will ultimately lead to the defeat of the claim for recovery from the plaintiff, notwithstanding the negligence done by defendant.
In some circumstances, when the defendant's misbehavior is of a kind that makes the plaintiff fearful and he rushes into danger in an effort to avoid the consequences of the defendant's misconduct and sustains harm, the plaintiff's actions did not cause the harm. In essence, the law does not require the plaintiff to use the same level of caution as a reasonable person would.
Q1. What distinguishes comparative negligence from contributory negligence?
Ans. Comparative negligence involves dividing the blame among the participants. After assigning comparative culpability, the damages can be given out proportionally based on the level of negligence. Hence, although comparative negligence is intended to lessen the claim if the plaintiff is substantially at fault, contributory negligence has the potential to altogether prevent the plaintiff from receiving damages. This distinction, however valid in other countries, is not present in Indian law.
Q2. What distinguishes composite negligence from contributory negligence?
Ans. There are two types of negligence in India: composite negligence and contributory negligence. According to the law, a plaintiff has engaged in contributory negligence if, as a result of his lack of reasonable care, he contributed to the loss brought on by the defendant. While a case of composite negligence exists when the plaintiff has a personal damage as a result of two or more wrongdoers.
Kickstart Your Career
Get certified by completing the courseGet Started