contributory negligence

At common law, contributory negligence was once a complete defence, softened by the “last opportunity” rule. England replaced this with apportionment in 1945. India has no general statute on the point, but courts apply apportionment as a rule of justice, equity and good conscience: damages are reduced in proportion to the claimant's share of fault.

The question is not whether the claimant owed the defendant a duty, but whether he failed to take reasonable care of himself, and whether that failure contributed to the harm. In motor accident claims, a no-fault compensation claim cannot be reduced on this ground. Contrast composite negligence, where the claimant is blameless and two or more wrongdoers are at fault.

Example

The rider who was hit while riding without a helmet may have his compensation reduced for contributory negligence, since the head injury would have been less severe with one.

In Indian law

• Butterfield v. Forrester (King's Bench, 1809): early common law rule that the claimant's fault barred recovery
• Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act, 1945 (England): apportionment of damages

See also

composite negligence · negligence · volenti non fit injuria · motor accident claim

Read more in the study notes

• Recent trends: e-banking, ATMs, internet and mobile banking, smart and credit cards, and their legal aspects (Banking Law)
• Allotment of shares, private placement and membership (Company Law)
• Transfer and transmission of shares, judicial intervention and rights of shareholders (Company Law)
• Winding up: concept, modes, grounds and the powers of the Tribunal (Company Law)
• The liquidator, preferential payments and insolvency under the IBC (Company Law)
• Carriage of goods by air, rail and road, container transport and multimodal transport (International Trade Economics)