Skip to main content

Distinction between Contributory Negligence and Composite Negligence

 DISTINCTION BETWEEN CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND COMPOSITE NEGLIGENCE

  1. It has already been referred to that when the plaintiff himself is responsible of Negligence as regards his personal safety and his personal lack of care contributes the harm which he has suffered, he is responsible of Contributory Negligence. In such case, the defendant is negligent closer to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is also negligent closer to his own self.

The loss to the plaintiff is the blended result of two factors, i.e., the defendant’s Negligence and his personal Contributory Negligence. Contributory Negligence is a defense. In a case of Contributory Negligence, the court docket has to see the extent to which the parties are at fault, there is apportionment of damages each in England and India. The defendant’s liability is reduced to the extent the plaintiff is observed responsible of Contributory Negligence. For example, if the conductor of a bus lets in a Passenger to travel on the roof of an overcrowded bus, and the driver, ignoring the presence of the passenger on the roof, swerves the bus to the right and as a result the passenger is hit by using the overhanging department of a tree and is thrown down and killed, there is Negligence on the section of the conductor and the driver. There is Contributory Negligence on the phase of the passenger travelling on the roof of the bus. In case, it is located that there is equal (50%) fault of both the sides, the defendant’s legal responsibility will be reduced by way of 50%.

When a character is injured as a result of the Negligence of two or more different persons, there is Composite Negligence on the phase of the people inflicting damages. According to Justice Shiv Dayal, “where a person is injured barring any Negligence on his section however as a result of the mixed effect of the Negligence of two different persons, it is not a case of Contributory Negligence in that sense; it is a case of what has been styled by Pollock as Injury by Composite Negligence”.

Thus, in Contributory Negligence, there is Negligence on the section of the plaintiff himself which contributes to the damage he has suffered, whereas in Composite Negligence, there is Negligence of two or extra defendants closer to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff himself is not to be blamed so a long way as the harm suffered through him is concerned.

  1. Another factor to be cited is that the liability of the folks responsible of Composite Negligence is joint and several. It has commonly been held that, in contrast to Contributory Negligence, there is no apportionment of damages payable through these responsible of the Composite Negligence. For instance, if, due to the fact of the Composite Negligence of A and B, damage has been triggered to Z, there will be a decree for the total amount in favor of Z towards A and B, making A and B together and severally liable: The courtroom will not go into the question as to how lots compensation is to be paid by A, and how a whole lot by using B, to Z.

In case of Contributory Negligence, there is apportionment of damages on the groundwork of fault of the plaintiff and the defendant, each of whom are to be blamed, whereas in the case of Composite Negligence, though extra than one defendants are to be blamed, there is to be a single decree for the total amount in opposition to all of them, except any apportionment of damages. The function was once as a result defined by way of Jain, in the United India Fire & General Insurance Co v. Sayar Kanwar:

Upon a consideration of the matter, it appears to us that where the Negligence of the claimant injured or the deceased additionally contributes to the going on of the accident, the quantity of compensation that the respondent will be required to pay shall be in share to the extent of his fault or Negligence, but where a person is injured or dies in an accident which takes place no longer on account of his Negligence, but because the drivers of the colliding cars have been negligent, the claimants am entitled to damages collectively and severally from the negligent respondents. It is no challenge of the Tribunal to apportion the damages between them.


Distinction between Contributory Negligence and Composite Negligence by Velanati Jyothirmai @ Lex Cliq
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more