Contributory Negligence: Meaning, Cases and Rule of Apportionment

Meaning

Contributory negligence means negligence on the part of the plaintiff which contributes to the damage suffered by him.

In such cases, the defendant is negligent, but the plaintiff also fails to take reasonable care for his own safety. Therefore, the plaintiff’s own carelessness becomes one of the causes of the accident or injury.

In simple words, contributory negligence arises when:

1. the defendant is negligent;
2. the plaintiff is also careless; and
3. the plaintiff’s carelessness contributes to the damages.

In Rural Transport Service v. Bezlum Bibi, an overcrowded bus conductor allowed passengers to travel on the roof of the bus. The driver, knowing that passengers were sitting on the roof, drove carelessly and tried to overtake a cart. During this, a passenger sitting on the roof was struck by a tree branch, fell down, and died.

The court held that the driver and conductor were negligent because they permitted and exposed passengers to danger. However, the deceased passenger was also guilty of contributory negligence because he knowingly took the risk of travelling on the roof of the bus.

Plaintiff’s Negligence Must Contribute to the Harm

Mere negligence of the plaintiff is not enough. It must be shown that the plaintiff’s negligence actually contributed to the accident or damage.

If the plaintiff was careless in some way, but that carelessness had no connection with the injury, the defence of contributory negligence will not apply.

In Agya Kaur v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, a rickshaw moving on the correct side of the road was hit by a bus coming at high speed on the wrong side. The rickshaw was carrying more passengers than usual.

The court held that although the rickshaw was overloaded, overloading did not contribute to the accident. The real cause of the accident was the rash and negligent driving of the bus.

Therefore, there was no contributory negligence on the part of the rickshaw puller.

Historical Rule

Under the old common law, contributory negligence was a complete defence. If the plaintiff was himself negligent and that negligence contributed to the injury, he could be totally barred from recovery any compensation.

The leading case is Butterfield v. Forrester. The defendant had left an obstruction on the road. The plaintiff, riding violently and without proper care, collided with it. Recovery of compensation was denied. The case is remembered for the strict old rule that a plaintiff who could have avoided the accident by ordinary care could not recover.

Last Opportunity Rule

The harshness of the old rule was mitigated by the last opportunity rule.

The leading case is Davies v. Mann. The plaintiff had negligently left his donkey unfettered on the highway. The defendant, driving too fast, ran over and killed it. The defendant was held liable because he had the last opportunity to avoid the accident but failed to do so.

This case is important because it softened the strictness of contributory negligence and shifted attention to the party who had the final effective chance to avoid harm.

Rule of Apportionment

The rule of last opportunity was also 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.

To remove this difficulty, England passed the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act, 1945. After this Act, if both the plaintiff and the defendant are negligent, damages are not denied completely. Instead, damages are apportioned between them according to their respective degree of fault.

Position in India

In India, there is no central legislation exactly like the English Act of 1945. However, Indian courts have generally followed the same equitable principle.

Thus, where both parties are negligent, the plaintiff’s claim is not completely defeated. The court reduces the compensation to the extent of the plaintiff’s own fault.

In Rural Transport Service v. Bezlum Bibi, The court held that the driver and conductor were negligent. At the same time, the deceased was also guilty of contributory negligence because he knowingly travelled on the roof of the bus. Therefore, the compensation was reduced by 50%

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer

The Supreme Court recognised that in cases of contributory negligence, courts have power to divide the loss between the parties in a just and equitable manner.

The damages may be reduced according to the plaintiff’s share in responsibility for the harm.

Rule of Apportionment in India

In India, where both the claimant and the defendant are negligent, courts generally reduce compensation in proportion to the claimant’s own share in causing the damage. Thus, the plaintiff is not deprived of all relief merely because he was partly negligent; instead, damages are apportioned according to the extent of blameworthiness.