AN ANALYSIS OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE UNDER INDIAN LAW

ABSTRACT

Negligence is a tort that is caused due to a breach of care by which injury or damages are caused to another individual. This act is usually caused due to a person not taking sufficient care while doing an activity that a prudent man would have. Negligence can be done to both a person and an object. In this article, the writer shall focus on contributory negligence whilst understanding the topic with certain examples and case laws. the doctrine of apportionment is also focused.?

KEYWORDS

Negligence, Duty of care, Contribution, Plaintiff, Safety

INTRODUCTION

Every individual has certain duties which he/she is obligated to. Everyone has a duty of care towards the said obligation. Caution and care need to be practiced during such circumstances. Negligence comes into picture when such individuals breach such duty of care which eventually causes loss to another person.?

In a general parlance, the one who suffers injury has right to claim compensation. But in the case of contributory negligence, it is to be noted that even the plaintiff has involvement leading to the injury. Every individual needs to take care and caution as an ordinary reasonable and prudent man would do.

If there had been an unexpected risk to the person, any sensible person would have known to respond and taken protective measures. It must be demonstrated through evidence that the available safety equipment is operational, undamaged, and that, had the person behaved appropriately, they could have used it to prevent the accident. It must be demonstrated through evidence that the person had access to the safety equipment, even though in this instance, they chose not to utilize it. Evidence must demonstrate that the person's negligence in failing to wear the appropriate safety equipment resulted in the injury.

If the plaintiff's failure to employ the proper safety equipment have contributed to the accident, they will not be entitled to any damages for their actions. In a case when both parties exercised adequate caution to prevent the accident from occurring, the defendant will not be permitted to file a lawsuit against the plaintiff.

Contributory negligence defenses require the plaintiff to bear some degree of fault. For instance, even in cases where an employee sustains injuries as a result of failing to wear safety gear, it is not always possible to determine whether his failure to wear the gear contributed to the accident. In order to prove their case, the plaintiff must show that the defendant owed them a reasonable duty of care to keep them safe. Examples where the plaintiff had a duty of care to wear his safety gear are included in this.?

Normally, a duty of care is employed to establish a relationship; but, in the context of contributory negligence, the duty of care proves that the plaintiff, or plaintiffs, had a duty of care to themselves, as the case may be. The claim that the plaintiff owes the other participants a duty of care in order to prevent them from being held responsible for larger damages in the event that the plaintiff is hurt is untrue.

To ascertain whether or not neglect was present in a certain situation, one should behave in accordance with what a cautious person would do. For instance, in cases where an individual's failure to wear a seatbelt result in an accident, negligence can only be established based on whether the offending party exercised the reasonable caution that a wise person would have exercised.

DOCTRINE OF APPORTIONMENT?

One of the primary pieces of statutory law designed to address situations like this one was the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act, 1945, which was introduced when the plaintiff began to exhibit contributory negligence. By virtue of this statute, judges could lower a plaintiff's damages award if it was determined that the plaintiff's negligence contributed to the injury or accident and/or was a significant contributing factor. Even if the plaintiff was unaware of the consequences of their negligence and ignorance, the judges are nonetheless required to assign damages.?

Since there isn't any specific central law in India that addresses this, the Law Enforced (Contributory Negligence) Act, 1945 is used. The Law Reform Act of England has resulted in a fairly equitable and just situation. The High Court of India has been presented with numerous cases. Following the Law Reform Act's guidelines, contributory negligence has been taken into consideration as a defense to the extent that the plaintiff is at fault and the doctrine of apportionment of damages has been applied.?

In the Froom v. Butcher case, the plaintiff did not wear a seat belt at the time of the collision because he found them uncomfortable. This resulted in an accident where he sustained severe injuries to his head and chest. The plaintiff would not have sustained such severe injuries if he had worn his seat belt, according to the defendant, who claimed that the plaintiff was solely to blame for the accident. The plaintiff's injuries—aside from the broken finger—were brought on by his refusal to wear a helmet, the court said, holding that fault for someone's actions does not depend on who caused the accident but rather what caused the injury.

CONCLUSION

Contributory negligence occurs when the plaintiff, through his own carelessness, adds to the harm that the defendant's negligence or wrongdoing causes. In this case, the plaintiff is deemed guilty of contributory negligence. Wearing safety gear is one way that contributory negligence might occur. If it is determined that the plaintiff was the cause of the harm, the damages will be lowered in proportion to the plaintiff's share of the fault that led to the accident.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by: Pathi Hrudaya Reddy