In this article you will learn about Contributory Negligence in Tort.
Contributory Negligence
Contributory negligence refers to the plaintiff’s ignorance in order to avoid the consequences arising from the negligent act of the defendant. If it is contributory negligence then the defendant may not be held liable for tort. (defence for the defendant) First, the plaintiff must prove negligence against the defendant. If the defendant has no exceptions to arise, they may then present a defence of contributory negligence.
Where plaintiff and defendant both have committed the breach of duty to take care in the same transaction of commission of tort it means where damage suffered by plaintiff has been contributed by plaintiff himself through commission of negligent act. Plaintiff accelerates the negligent act. Then the defendant is not solely responsible for the act done negligently.
In common law, before 1880 the contributory negligence was an absolute defence for the defendant but in 1882 the judicial committee of Privy Council in the case of Butterfield V Forrester held that the contributory negligence needs some modification. Earlier it was only an absolute defence but later modified by conditional defence. In the case of Butterfield V Forrester (1809), it was held that a plaintiff who failed to exercise reasonable care and caused the accident would not be compensated. Due to the defence of contributory negligence, any claim for damages was completely precluded regardless of how minor the plaintiff contributed to the accident. Therefore in those cases where both the opposing parties were negligent, a successful claim of contributory negligence would result in the defendant being found not guilty.
Rule of last opportunity - means the last opportunity to avoid an accident. In a situation where both the plaintiff and the defendant are negligent on their part and the one who has the last opportunity to prevent such consequences fails to do so will be held liable for such an accident solely.
In the case of British Columbia Electric Railway Company, Limited v. Loach, the court ruled that the last opportunity rule is not satisfactory. In 1945, British Parliament enacted a legislation named the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence Act) 1945. In this act it was expressly mentioned that the rule of last opportunity will not be applicable and damages will be denied at the degree of the fault committed by parties, i.e. Rule of Proportion which depends on the degree of fault.
Rule of Alternative Danger - this doctrine is applied in situations where the defendant pleads that to avoid big danger, small danger was necessary. The plea of alternative danger is taken by the plaintiff to commit tort of negligence to prevent big danger over small dangers. If the act is justifiable in proportion to the rule of alternative danger then the plaintiff’s negligent act will be ignored.
Where the plaintiff committed a wrong to prevent a big risk or danger it will not be treated as contributory negligence. The defendant can not appeal in court of law that the plaintiff also committed a wrong. In the case of Jones v. Boyce (1816), the plaintiff was travelling in a coach. The driver was driving negligently which could result in serious injuries. The plaintiff saw that while approaching forward, an accident would likely take place so he jumped from the coach and broke his leg. The defendant took the plea of contributory negligence but was denied and held liable because rule of alternative danger was applied.
Conclusion
To conclude, contributory negligence is the defendant's defence that limits or prohibits the plaintiff to get rewards or compensation. The burden of proof lies over the defendant when it comes to contributory negligence.
This article on Contributory Negligence in Tort is contributed by Dipshikha Anand. If you like LawStudyPoint.com do follow us on our Twitter handle.