This document discusses the legal concept of contributory negligence. It provides several examples to illustrate how courts determine whether a plaintiff's negligence contributed to the damages in a case:
1) A man riding a horse at an extreme speed collided with a pole and was injured. The court found he did not exercise ordinary caution and denied his claim.
2) Not enough to show a plaintiff lacked care for their safety - it must be proved this lack of care contributed to the damages.
3) If a defendant's negligence alone would have caused the same damages even if the plaintiff acted carefully, contributory negligence does not apply.
4) In cases of joint negligence, compensation may be reduced by 50% if both
2. The omission to do something which a reasonable
man, guided by those considerations which
ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs,
would do or doing something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do.
3. When the plaintiff by his own want of care
contributes to the damage caused by the
negligence or wrongful conduct of the defendant,
he is considered to be guilty of contributory
negligence.
4. a man riding a horse which collided with a pole erected on a public road and where, as a
result, the rider was thrown from his horse and injured. The man was denied his claim for
damages because he was found to have ridden at an extreme speed, not taking ordinary
care. According to the judge before whom this case was brought at first instance, an injured
party could not recover his loss if he could have avoided the accident or injury by exercising
‘ordinary caution’. According to the court, if the plaintiff would have exercised usual care,
he would have seen that obstacle. Therefore the accident had occurred entirely as a result
of his fault.
5. the plaintiff need not necessarily owe a duty of care to the other
party. What has to be proved is that the plaintiff did not take due
care of his own safety and thus contributed to his own damage.
not enough to show that the plaintiff did not take due care of
his own safety. It has also to be proved that it is his lack of
care which contributed to the resulting damage. If the
defendant’s negligence would have caused the same damage
even if the plaintiff had been careful and the plaintiff’s
negligence is not the operative cause of the accident, the
defence of contributory negligence cannot be pleaded.
6. the defendant company sent its deliveryman to deliver the replacement of a
gas cylinder to the plaintiff at his residence. The cap of the cylinder was
defective. The deliveryman obtained an axe from the plaintiff for opening
the cylinder and hammered the cap and as a result gas leaked from there
and caused fire resulting in the death of the plaintiff’s daughter and
damage to his property. It was held that there was sole negligence of the
deliveryman.
7. In an accident, the plaintiff is as much at the
fault as the defendant, the compensation to
which he would otherwise be entitled will be
reduced by 50%.
8. The conductor of the bus invited passengers to travel on the roof of the
bus. The driver swerved the bus to the right to overtake a cart. As the
driver turned on kutcha portion of the road, Taher Sheikh, who was
travelling on the roof was hit by the branch and fell down, resulting he
died. The Calcutta high court decided that there was negligence on the part
of the conductor and the driver of the bus, and there was also contributory
negligence on the part of the deceased as he took the risk of travelling on
the roof of the bus.
9. The court reduced the compensation payable to the extent the
claimant was himself at fault. There, the claimant who was
going on a cycle suddenly turned right side of the road. He
was hit by the respondent’s bus resulting in his fall and injury
to his leg necessitating hospitalization for about 2.5 months. It
was held both the parties had equally contributed to the
accident.
10. when two persons are negligent, that one of them, who had the later
opportunity of avoiding the accident by taking ordinary care, should be
liable for the loss.
The application of the rule of last opportunity was very unsatisfactory
because the party, whose act of negligence was earlier, altogether
escaped the responsibility and whose negligence was subsequent was
made wholly liable even though the resulting damage was the product of
the negligence of both the parties.
11. the plaintiff fettered the forefeet of his donkey and left it on a narrow
highway.The defendant was driving his wagon driven by horses too fast
that it negligently ran over and killed the donkey. In spite of his own
negligence, the plaintiff was entitled to recover because the defendant
had the last opportunity.
