Q.4. What is contributory negligence?

Explain the doctrine and state the exceptions of

contributory negligence with relevant case laws

Ans:

Negligence is a type of tort which means a breach of duty (duty to take care) by one person
which causes damages to another person. It is an act of carelessness and ignorance on the part
of the defendant which he is obligated to perform which a rational and prudent man would
not do.
Contributory negligence basically means ignorance from both the parties involved. If a
person is driving a car without any breaks met with an accident with another person who was
driving on the wrong side of the road. This results in contributory negligence. It’s a defence
available to the defendant in case of contributory negligence which prevents the plaintiff to
get compensation.
Contributory negligence is the ignorance of due care on the part of the plaintiff to avoid the
consequences of the defendant’s negligence. This concept is loosely based on the maxim-
“Volenti non fit injuria” (injury sustained voluntarily). It means If a person is not taking due
diligence in order to avoid consequences resulting out from the negligence of the defendant
the liability of negligence will be on both of them.
Principles  of contributory negligence
 If the plaintiff is himself negligent for taking due care in order to avoid consequences and
becomes the direct cause of the damages, he is not entitled to receive any compensation.

 If both the plaintiff and the defendant have taken reasonable measure and ordinary care to
such extent where they both wanted to avoid such consequences then the plaintiff can’t sue
the defendant.
Exception:
The burden of proving contributory negligence
The burden of proof lies over the defendant. In order to get the defence of contributory
negligence, the defendant must prove that the plaintiff is responsible as him, and ignored due
diligence which could have avoided such consequences arising from the negligence of the
defendant.
Great central rly. V. Bates(1940) 3 All.E.R.399
The plaintiff sustained injuries as he fell down from the shaft of the lift because he went
backwards opened the doors and stepped through it assuming that the lift would still be in
place.
He was guilty of contributory negligence and therefore was not entitled to recover
compensation for the damages sustained.
Hansraj v. Tram CO., 35 Bom.478
A attempted to board a moving tramcar and end up getting injured. He sued the company. It
was held that if he would have boarded in a tramcar, not in motion, it would have been easier
for him to get a firm grip in the handlebar and settle down easily. The company was not held
liable.