Q. 5. DISCUSS IN BRIEF THE GENERAL DEFENCES IN TORT LIABILITY.

INTRODUCTION- When a tort is committed, it gives right to the victim to file a plaint for claiming damages.
In this capacity, the victim of the tort is called the Plaintiff and the wrong doer i.e person against whom
the case is filed is called the Defendant. To claim compensation, the plaintiff is required to prove the
essentials required for claiming damages. Likewise, the Defendant has also a right to plead that he is not
liable to pay the damages. The grounds available to the defendant, which if proved make the defendant
not liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff, are called the DEFENCES.
GENERAL DEFENCES IN TORT LIABILITY
There are EIGHT general defences recognized in the Law of Torts. Any one of them, if proved by the
defendant, escapes the defendant from liability to pay damages to the plaintiff. These are:
1. CONSENT OF PLAINTIFF or volenti non fit injuria.
2. PLAINTIFF HIMSELF IS WRONGDOER.
3. DAMAGE IS RESULT OF INEVITABE OR UNAVOIDABLE ACCIDENT
4. ACT CAUSING DAMAGE IS THE ACT OF GOD BEYOND CONTROL OF DEFENDANT
5. DAMAGE WAS CAUSED WHILE EXCERCISING RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE BY THE DEFENDANT
6. ACT WAS THE RESULT OF A GENUINE MISTAKE
7. THE ACT RESULTED FROM A GRAVE NECESSITY
8. IT WAS ACT OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY WORKING UNDER THE LAW.
A brief discussion with illustrations of these general defences is as under:
VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA OR CONSENT OF THE PLAINTIFF- It means that if a person has volunteered to
suffer an injury, he cannon hold the other person liable for compensation of such injury. This is also called
the DEFENCE OF CONSENT and it applies subject to certain limitations under the criminal liability as well.
However the following clarifications are attached with the defence of consent:
1. The consent given by the victim may be express or even implied.
2. Mere knowledge of a possible injury is not sufficient to constitute such consent. It must be specific and
if needed after giving a warning of such injury.
3. The consent must be free and not as a result of any duress or fraud. The essentials of a free consent
under the Indian Contract Act apply in the case of Torts as well.
4. Consent must of an adult person, who is competent to give consent as per the age requirement and
soundness of mind. Again the provisions of the Contract Law are applicable.
EXAMPLES- Giving consent for a surgical operation, implied consent of spectators and players of games
are good examples of such consent available as defence. Important Indian cases on the point are: Laksmi
Rajan v. Malar Hospital Ltd. (Tamil Nadu, 1998) holding general consent for surgery is not sufficient for
removal of Uterus; and Padmavati v. Dugganaika (1975) where persons getting lift in a vehicle were held
to have consented for injury in the accident.
PLAINTIFF THE WRONGDOER- In a case of Torts where the plaintiff claiming compensation has himself
committed the wrong, the defendant cannot be held liable for compensation. The general principle of law
is: NO ONE CAN TAKE THE BENEFIT OF ONES OWN WRONG. The defence of this category is not simple and
straight but subject to following clarifications:
1. The defence of plaintiff himself the wrongdoer is available if the injury caused was the result of wrong
committed by the plaintiff.
, like a car driver running overspeed and without lights doesnot see the truck rightly parked and hits it
with a result suffering injuries and damage of the car. He cannot claim damages from the truckowner.
2. But if the wrong committed by the plaintiff is independent of the injury caused by defendant, then the
defendant cannot avail the benefit of plaintiff’s wrongdoing. A case of negligence on the part of both
plaintiff and defendant resulting in injury shall be covered under Contributory Negligence, not as a
complete defence.
3. POLLOCK clarifies the defence of plaintiff the wrongdoer as: “When the plaintiff himself is a wrongdoer,
he is not disabled from recovering in tort unless some unlawful act or conduct on his own part is connected
with the harm suffered by him as part of the same transaction.” In National Coal Board v. England
(1954)AC403 it was held that theft was unoneeced with the burglary,therefore, liability under tort
continues.
INEVITABLE ACCIDENT- If an accident the happening of which could not be avoided without taking the risk
of legal injury for which compensation is claimed, the accident caused by the defendant does not attract
compensation. The test for declaring an accident is: OF A REASONABLE MAN and AFTER TAKING
REASONABLE CARE. Pollock clarifies: “It doesnot mean absolutely inevitable, but it means not avoidable
by any such precautions as a reasonable man could be expected to take.” Indian case of SHRIDHAR Tiwari
v. UP Stae Road Transport Corporation,1987 ACJ636, is a classic case on the point. In this case the defence
of inevitable was accepted by the Court where while saving a cyclist the rear portion of the bus hit the
front portion of the second bus because of slippery road on the rainy day. There are also reported cases
of accidents outside children schools where such defence was accepted as inevitable.
ACT OF GOD- It is called the Act of Nature or even Natural Calamity. Like act of God, a person does not
have control over such an act, it is sudden and unforeseen. If the plaintiff could foresee such an act and
he did not avoid it, then he is liable for negligence, as was held in the case ofVohra Sadikbhai Rajakbhai v.
State of Gujarat (2016) the Supreme Court held the management of Mauzam Dam liable for negligence in
releasing water before the rainy season. The defence of Act of God/Natural Calamity was not accepted.
HALSBURY’S LAWS OF ENGLAND Explain the Defence as:
“ An extraordinary occurrence of circumstance which could not have been foreseen and which could not
have been guarded against, or more accurately, as an accident due to a natural cause, directly and
exclusively, without human intervention, and which could not have been avoided by any amount of
foresight and pains and care reasonably to be expected of the person sought to be made liable for it. “
TWO INPORTANT ESSENTIALS OF THIS DEFENCE-
1. There must be working of natural forces.
2. The occurrence must be extraordinary and not one which could be anticipated and reasonably guarded
against.

PRIVATE DEFENCE:
Private Defence is a complete defence in Torts as well as under the criminal law. It means an injury inflicted
by the defendant to save himself. Had he not done so, the plaintiff would have injured him. Right of self
defence is available both in cases of protection of one’s person i.e. body and also protection of property.
In the law of Torts, the general cases where the right of self defence protects the defendant are Trespass
in case of property, and Battery including Assault so far as protection of one’s person is concerned. Right
to Self Defence or private Defence, as it is also called, os also recognized under the Criminal Law. So far as
extent and time of such right is concerned, the common principles in offences and torts are recognized as
under:
1. Right to self defence is proportionate to the threat of attack on the person or property. It is not more
than that. However, the proportion is not to be weighed in golden scales but generally in the given
circumstances.Cockcroft v. Smith is a decided leading English case on this point.
2. The right to self defence begins as soon as the potential danger becomes visible, and it comes to an end
when such threat comes to an end. Cook v. Beel is the English case on this point.
3. The threat must be possible threat, not impossible of occurrence to be used as a possible threat. When
in a moving train the defendant excercised his right over the person abusing and showing signs of threat
standing on the platform, the Court did not accept possibility of threat and exercise of self defence.
4. The threat must be present and instant. The future threat provides occasion to save oneself and report
the matter to police or other authorities.

MISTAKE AS A DEFENCE IN TORTS:

As a general principle, mistake of fact or mistake of law is no defence under the Law of Torts. But there
are certain exceptions to the rule, where the defendant can exercise this right of defence. But he must
show that he acted under an honest but a mistaken belief. Such exceptional cases, where mistake of fact
is a defence from liability of the defendant are:
1. In case of malicious prosecution of an innocent man, if defendant proves that it resulted from mistake
of fact, it has been accepted a valid defence in Gaya Prasad v. Bhagat Singh.
2. Honest belief in truth of a statement is a defence in case of defamation, held in Derry v. Peek.
3. Mistaken belief of a servant was accepted a valid defence in vicarious liability of his master in the case
of GW Railway Company.

NECESSITY AS DEFENCE:
Necessity is an unavoidable situation where committing a tort becomes essential. It is normally to avoid
a bigger harm. In a way, Necessity as a defence goes close to Inevitable Accident and also has some
resemblance with Self Defence. But it is different from both of them.
Necessity Different from Inevitable Accident-In the case of necessity, the harm caused is intentional; but
in an Inevitable Accident, it happens despite best effort to avoid it.
Necessity Distinguished from Self Defence- In Necessity the victim of the wrong act is innocent, but in Self
or Private Defence, the victim is himself a wrongdoer.
ILLUSTRATIVE CASES-
1. Throwing goods on a ship to lighten it and to save the ship and persons on board from drowning, held
in Mouse’s case.
2. Pulling down a house to save spread of fire.
3. Hypothecating or even selling a ship by the Master of ship that is fast vanishing, held in hastie’s case.
4. operation of a seriously injured and unconscious patient by the competent surgeon without getting
consent.

ACT OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY AS DEFENCE:

If the act is assigned under the Act of the legislature and as per the requirements of law, such act causing
any damage is not actionable as a Tort. But it would have been constituted the tort if it was done by the
private person not so authorized. It is just close to sovereign functions. The immunity from liability to such
statutory authority is both for direct as well as incidental acts. The examples are Railyay tracks causing
damage and vibrations to the adjoining land; the acts of Electricity Board, Telephone department, Police
personnel and Armed Forces etc.
TWO KINDS OF AUTHORISATION-
1. Absolute Authority- which has been given an authority to do acts without mention of any conditions.
2. Conditional Authority- which can be excercised only if the given conditions and circumstances exist.
This is a limited authority. Example of- Police firing by police.
CONDITIONS of this Defence-
1. The authority has been empowered under the Law made by competent authority.
2. This law is reasonable, just and fair as laid down in Maneka Gandhi’s case (1978).
3. The act of the authority is done honestly and in good faith. Any arbitrary use of power makes the
authority liable.
4. The authority has used due diligence while doing the act. An act of negligence is actionable, as held in
Taff Valde Rail Co.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------
Q.6. DEFINE THE TERMS NEGLIGENCE, CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND COMPOSITE NEGLIGENCE
RESULTING IN COMMISSION OF TORTS AND LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES.

INTRODUCTION- Tort is a civil wrong, done intentionally that is actionable and resulting in payment of
compensation to the person who has been wronged. In this sense, the act constituting tort must be done
with the intention of causing damage, as a general principle, however, subject to certain exceptions falling
under the principles of Strict Liability and Absolute Liability. Negligence on the part of the wrongdoer i.e
the tort feaser conveys his intention, which can be named as the implied intention for the wrong. Thereby,
Negligence is fulfillment of one essential condition to make an act an actionable wrong, called the Tort.
WHAT IS NEGLIGENCE?
Negligence is the lack of care while doing an act that is expected of the person doing it under the law of
the land. Negligently doing an act results in commission of a Tort as well as the commission of a criminal
wrong. The intensity of negligence constituting an offence is much more than it is in the case of a tort. But
what is Negligence? It has not been precisely defined and differs with authors who give definition to this
term. An authenticated definition of the term NEGLIGENCE can be found in the Judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, AIR 2005SC3180, in the following words:
SC DEFINITION: “ Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by 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. Actionable negligence
consists in the neglect of the use of ordinary care or skill towards a person to whom the defendant owes
the duty or observing ordinary care and skill, by which neglect the plaintiff has suffered injury to his person
or property.”
THREE CONSTITUENTS_ The following 3 elements of Negligence emerge from the above definition:
1. The defendant owed a legal duty of care towards the plaintiff.
2. There is a breach of that duty by the defendant.
3. The consequence of such breach is commission of a Tort for which defendant is required to pay damages
for the loss caused to the plaintiff.
THREE MEANINGS OF NEGLIGENCE BY CHARLESWORTH & PERCY: The celebrated authorsgive 3 general
meanings to the term Negligence which are applicable in different circumstances:
1. A state of mind in which it opposed to intention.
2. Careless conduct.
3. The breach of duty to take care that is imposed by common or statute law.
It is the third meaning that has general application in the law of torts.
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE IS MORE INTENSE THAN CIVIL NEGLIGENCE-
The Apex Court in Jacob Mathew was examining the criminal negligence, therefore, it distinguished the
criminal negligence from civil negligence required for liability of a Tort. The Court made it clear that”to
fasten liability in Criminal Law, the degree of negligence has to be higher than that of negligence enough
to fasten liability for damages in Civil Law.” In criminal negligence, the term is recklessness which means
a gross negligence, which is not the case for liability nder the Tort. Lord Atkin also made such distinction
in Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecution,(1937)AC576 as” Simple lack of care- such as will constitute
civil liability is not enough for purposes of criminal law
NEGLIGENCE IN TORTS IS NOT GUILTY INTENTION OR MENS REA- Under Law of Torts, Negligence has TWO
MEANINGS:
1. Negligence as a mode of committing certain torts like, negligently or carelessly committing trespass,
nuisance or defamation. In this context it makes negligence a mental element.
2. Negligence is also considered as a separate tort. It means a conduct which creates a risk of causing
damage, rather than a state of mind. House of Lords gave this meaning to negligence under law of torts
in the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson.
ESSENTIALS OF NEGLIGENCE-
Three essentials of Negligence under Law of Torts are as under:
1. Duty of care to the Plaintiff- The defendant owed the duty to take care in respect of the plaintiff or all
persons like him (as in right in rem). What is the duty and what is extent? It depends on the foresseability
of injury i.e. the defendant could know that his failure to perform his duty may result in injury to any
person or property. However, it does not cover foreseeing the remote possibility of injury. Remote
possibility is one which is not the direct consequence of the act done by the defendant, and such a
consequence may not be foressen by any person of ordinary prudence. In Bolton v. Stone, where in the
cricket stadim 17 ft high over the pitch went outside the stadium and hit the plaintiff on the highway,
which never happened during past 30 years. The principle of remote possibility was applied by the House
of Lords, and stadium management held not liable.
2. BREACH OF DUTY- The defendant failed to perform his duty, and thereby causing the accident or the
act known as Tort. For declaring the breach of duty, the Court is to take into account the STANDARD OF
CARE expected of the defendant. It depends upon the circumstances of the case i.e. NATURE of DUTY, the
DEFENDANT ( an ordinary man or Professional) and the AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION PAID. .We can name
as:
(i) The importance of the object to be achieved-i.e. avoiding fall of wall, motor accident or a safe surgery.
(ii) The magnitude of the Risk involved i.e. What can be the possible consequence of Negligence- Like
normal injury, loss of reputation, or death of the person involved.
(iii) AMOUNT of Consideration Paid for highering services- If more than normal, the magnitude of care also
increases. As we can differentiate medical treatment by an ordinary doctor and by a superspecialist .
3. DAMAGE- What the loss of the Plaintiff as a consequence of failure to perform the duty by the defendant.
The damage is to be compensated by paying compensation or damages. More the losss, more the
compensation awarded by the Court.
PROFESSIONAL AND MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE-
Negligence may be in ordinary cases of torts like motor accidents, maintenance of buildings etc etc but it
can also in the cases where an act s done by a professional, like a doctor, engineer, advocate etc. In cases
of professional, the degree of care is obviously more than is expected from an ordinay man. While applying
the standarad of an ORDINARY PRUDENT MAN, in cases of professionals, it shall be treated as the
ORDINARY PROFESSIONA OF THE STATUS OF Defendant. The BOLAM TEST applied in such cases is
ORDINARY PROFESSIONAL OF THE LEVEL OF PROFESSIONAL OF STANDARD WHICH DEFENDANT HOLDS.
MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE- These days, medical negligence has become an important category of Torts arising
out of negligence of Medical Professionals. Therefore, Medical Negligence is the negligence done by the
professionals involved in medical treatment. It includes physicians, surgeons, nursing staff. Pathologists,
and also general staff of the hospital or clinic..
CRIMINAL AND CIVIL MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE- Section 304-A IPC deals with negligent act causing accident
resulting in the death of a person. It is criminal negligence. And negligence covered in general cases,
causing some damage and constituting a Tort is Civil Negligence. Whereas in Criminal Negligence the
defendant is to be awarded sentence like of Imprisonment;and in Civil negligence like Torts a
compensation is to be claimed by the Plaintiff. A case may give both options to the plaintiff- to prosecute
for offence (criminal negligence) or under Law of Torts (for civil negligence). Supreme Court in Jacob
Mathew v. state of Punjab,, AIR 2005 SC3180 has very clearly differentiated civil and criminal negligence.
CRIMINAL NEGIGENCE DEMANDS PROOF OF MORE NEGLIGENCE- In Jacob Mathew, the SC held that to
make the defendant liable for criminal negligence, a greater degree of negligence is required to be proved.
It is called RECKLESSNESS. But for liability in civil case like Torts, negligence of ordinary level is sufficient.
However, in Res Ipsa Loquiter cases, even no proof is required.
SOME IMP. CASES OF MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE
1. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, AIR 2005 SC 3180 is the latest important Indian case, where
negligence was defined, civil and criminal negligence distinguished, and held that to constitute criminal
negligence a higher degree of negligence named “Recklessness” is required to be proved, but for a Tort
an ordinary prudent man negligence that caused the damage is sufficient.
2. Indian Medical Association v. VP Shantha and Others, (1995)6SCC651,made it clear that medical
professionals are also liable like other professionals under a contract or law of Torts. The Apex Court
distinguished professional from an occupational liability. A professional is desired to possess the required
degree of competence and he must also exercise reasonable care while giving medical advice and
performing his duties.
3. In M/S Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjot Ahluwalia, (1998)4SCC39,the Supreme Court held that an
error in judgment is not negligence, and it can also be negligence if it would not have been made by a
reasonably competent professional. The case also gave a definition of the Term “negligence” with 3
components, viz. Duty, Breach and Resulting Damage.
4. State of Punjab v. Shiv Lal. AIR 2005 SC 3280 was a case of family planning operation (Vasectomy)
performed by a Govt. doctor. The question of Vicarious Liability was involved, which the court held can
be applied in such cases but only if medical negligence is proved. But the incompetence of the doctor who
performed the operation and negligence on his part is required to be proved.
5. In V. Kishan Rao v. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital,(2010)5SCC523,it was declared when the principle of
res ipso loquitur will be applicable in medical negligence cases. The Court observed that the principle is
to help the plaintiff who for no fault of his own is unable to prove how the accident occurred. The Apex
Court relied on the English case Scott v. London & St.Katherine Docks Co., (1865 3H&C 596, where it was
observed:
“ Where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants and the accident
is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management used
proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants that the
accident arose from want of care.”
DOCTOR’S DUTY OF CARE SUMMED UP- There are 3 dutes of the doctor :
1. A duty of care in deciding whether to take the case.
2. A duty of care in deciding what treatment to be given.
3. A duty of care in the administration of the treatment.
 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

MEANING- Contributory negligence is negligence of both parties i.e. the plaintiff and the defendant
resulting in the damage that has been caused to the plaintiff.
DEFINITION- The Supreme Court defined the term in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
v. Laxman Iyer, AIR 2003 SC 4182 as : “ An accident would be said to be the result of contributory
negligence if the proximate cause of the accident is the act or omission amounting to want of ordinary
care or in defence of duty or obligation on the part of the complaining party (the plaintiff) has conjoined
with the other party’s negligence.”
ILLUSTRATIONS- There are several decided cases of contributory negligence, majority being related to
transport and electric accidents, where contributory negligence was the issue. Some of these cases are
referred hereunder:
1. Rural Transport Service v. Bezlum Bibi, AIR 1980 Cal 165, the passengers were sitting on the roof of the
bus. In an effort to overtake a cart, the driver went on the kucha road. One passenger fell and died. It was
held the passenger on the roof also contributed negligence alongwith the driver.
2. Sushma Mitra v. M.P. State road Transport Corporation, AIR 1974 MP 68, the plaintiff was travelling
on a highway keeping his elbow on a window sill. The plea of contributory negligence was not accepted
because it was the highway, leaving no chance of close traffic or things touching the bus. Had it been a
crowded street, it would have been a case of contributory negligence.
3. Municipal Board Jaunpur v. Braham Kishore, AIR 1978 All 168, the plaintiff going on bicycle without
headlight in darkness fell in the ditch dug by thr defendant without providing light danger. It was held as
a case of contributory negligence.
4, Agya Kaur v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, AIR 1980 P&H183, an overloaded rickshaw going on
the correct side was hit by bus from opposite wrong side and with high speed. It did not stop and later hit
a pole. The plea of contributory negligence of rickshaw driver being overloade was not accepted.
THE TEST FOR APPLYING CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE-
1. Had the plaintiff’s negligence not there, the accident could have been avoided.
2. Both plaintiff and defendant did not take reasonable care.
3. The last opportunity rule can also be applied while applying principle of contributory negligence.
WHAT IS LAST OPPORTUNITY RULE?
In an English case of Davies v. Mann (1882) this rule was explained as; “ When two persons are negligent
and one of them who had the last opportunity to save the accident by taking ordinary care, which he has
not taken. Then such later person shall be only liable. But these days the courts apply the rule of
contributory negligence in such cases.
WHETHER CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IS A DEFENCE? As from the reported case law and the statutory
provisions on the point, contributory negligence is not a complete defence for the defendant for escaping
from the liability. It results in apportionment of damages.
APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES-
In India there is no national legislation like the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act, 1945 in England,
only Kerala Act of 1976 is there accepting rule of Apportionment of Damages in the case of contributory
negligence. But the case law on the point indicates that the Indian courts are accepting the rule of
apportionment of damages, thereby reducing the liability of the defendant of the extent of contributory
negligence of the plaintiff with a particular mention thereof in the judgment.

COMPOSITE NEGLIGENCE
Composite Negligence as a legal principle in Torts goes close to the Contributory Negligence in the sense
that more than one person is held to be negligent resulting in the damage. The principle of Apportionment
of damages (compensation) is also applied in both. But the difference remains that whereas in
Contributory Negligence the other person is the Plaintiff who is suing. But in Composite Negligence, it is
not the Plaintiff but More Than One Defendants. Such persons are called “Composite Tortfeasors”.
ILLUSTRATIVE CASES-
1. Pepsu Road Transport Corporatin v. Qimat Rai Jain, 1985ACJ16(P&H), where two passengers on the
highway were resting elbows ofn the window sill, the truck from the opposite direction hit the right side
of the bus, causing injuries. The principle of contributory negligence was not accepted but the composite
negligence rule was applied for the reason of negligence of both drivers.
2. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishnan, AIR 1981Kant.11, where two passengers
sustained left hand injuries when two passenger buses brushed each other. Composite Negligence was
applied.
3. Parsani Devi v. State of Haryana, 1973 ACJ 531(P&H), negligence of State bus and private jeep driver
was held. But Haryana Govt was made to pay the damages, leaving it open to them for recovering from
private jeep driver.
JOINT & SEVERAL LIABILITY- High Courts are divided on this point but the later trend is:
1. The principle of Composite Negligence is applicable in Torts.
2. The liability in such cases is Joint and also several. Under it one defendant can not avoid paying full
compensation.
3. The defendant made to pay full amount of compensation may recover from the other negligent person,
made defendant or not.
4. The Court when asked specifically may apportion the liability of different defendants.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONTRIBUTORY & COMPOSITE NEGLIGENCE

1. Negligence is common in both cases. The standard of care, breach of duty and result of damages as
essentials of Negligence are equally applicable in Contributory as well as Composite Negligence. The
standard of care of Ordinary Prudent Man or of a Professional are equally applicable.
2. NEGLIGENT PARTIES- In contributory negligence, they are plaintiff and defendant but in Composite
Negligence, it is not the plaintiff but more than one defendants.
3. APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES- In both contributory and composite negligence, the contribution to
the damage is apportioned, and accordingly, the liability can be apportioned. But under the principle of
Joint and several liability, in composite negligence, the liability of even one party can be held, leaving him
open to recover from the other negligent person.
4. LESSER COMPENSATION- In contributory negligence, the amount of compensation payable to the
plaintiff gets reduced to the extent of his liability, but in Composite Negligence, the plaintiff gets full
compensation.
5. RULE OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE MORE ACCEPTED- The courts in India have accepted more clearly
and uniformly the rule of contributory negligence in Torts but the Rule of Composite Negligence is not
that uniformly and clearly applied.
CONCLUSION- Negligence has been recognized a well accepted and important concept of liability in Torts
but the required statutory support is missing. Since, Law of Torts is now being more based on the written
law, the enactment of Tort Law Based on Negligence is required, particularly when liability under
contributory negligence and Composite Negligence is required to be fixed.
---------------------------