Contributory Negligene

Meaning:        Contributory negligence is the negligence which is not avoiding the consequence arising from the negligence of some other person, when means and opportunity are afforded to do so.  Thus it is the non-exercise of such ordinary care, diligence and skill by the plaintiff who could have avoided the consequences of the defendant's negligence.  The doctrine of contributory negligence is based on the principle that though the defendant in fact was negligent, yet the plaintiff has by his own negligent, carelessness has contributed to the consequence and that the defendant's negligent is not the true proximate cause of injury.  When the plaintiff by his own want of care contributes to the damage caused nu the negligence or wrongful conduct of the defendant, je is considered to be guilty of contributory negligence.  This is a defense in which the defendant has to prove that plaintiff failed to take reasonable care of his own safety and that was a contributing factor to the harm ultimately suffered by the plaintiff.  If A, going on the wrong side of the road, is hit by a vehicle coming from the opposite direction and driven rashly by B, A can be met with the defense of contributory negligence on his part.

Case Law:

1. Shelton vs. L&W Rly, 1876: In this case a person who was deaf, crossing a railway line was unable to hear a warning giving to him by the company's servant-in-charge at the crossing was knocked down and injured. Plaintiff sue defendant for damages. Court held that there was contributory negligence on part of plaintiff, because of deafness incapable to hear the warning.
2. Yoginder Paul Chowdhury vs. Durgadas, 1972, SCJ 483 (Delhi): The Delhi High Court has held that a pedestrian who tries to cross a road all of a sudden and is hit by a moving vehicle is guilty of contributory negligence.

Conclusion:    At common law contributed negligence on the part of plaintiff was considered to be good defense and the plaintiff lost his actions.  Plaintiffs own negligence disentitled him to bring any action against negligent defendant.  Here plaintiffs negligence does not mean breach of duty towards the other party but it means absence of due care on his part about his own safety.  According to this rule, when two persons are negligent, that one of them who had the latter opportunity of avoiding the accident by taking ordinary care should be liable for the loss. It means that if the defendant is negligent and the plaintiff having a latter opportunity to avoid a consequences of the negligence of the defendant.