Contributory negligence, the last opportunity rule and other defences to negligence
LUG-101 Law of Torts including Motor Vehicle Accident and Consumer Protection Act, Unit III: Negligence, including contributory negligence and other defences. · LLB · 60 min
When the plaintiff's own carelessness has contributed to his injury, should he recover nothing, everything, or a part? This lecture traces the answer from the common-law bar (Butterfield v. Forrester, 1809) through the last opportunity rule (Davies v. Mann, 1842) and its "constructive" extension (British Columbia Electric Railway v. Loach, 1916) to apportionment under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, and states the Indian position (apportionment on justice, equity and good conscience; Rural Transport Service v. Bezlum Bibi; the distinction between composite and contributory negligence in T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan, 2008). It also covers children, the doctrine of alternative danger (Jones v. Boyce), the identification doctrine, seat-belt and helmet cases, and volenti and inevitable accident as defences to negligence. It answers the past questions on contributory negligence (2019-20, 2022-23) and the last opportunity rule (2017-18, 2023-24).
Objectives
- Define contributory negligence and explain why it is a failure of care for one's own safety rather than a breach of duty to the defendant.
- Explain the common-law rule of Butterfield v. Forrester and its harshness.
- Explain the last opportunity rule (Davies v. Mann) and the constructive last opportunity (British Columbia Electric Railway v. Loach), and why the rule was abandoned.
- State the rule of apportionment under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 and the Indian position.
- Distinguish contributory negligence from composite negligence (T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan) and explain the identification doctrine.
- Apply the rules on children and on alternative danger (Jones v. Boyce), and the defences of volenti and inevitable accident, to negligence problems.
Slides
- What contributory negligence is
- The common-law bar: Butterfield v. Forrester (1809)
- The last opportunity rule: Davies v. Mann (1842)
- Constructive last opportunity: BC Electric Railway v. Loach (1916)
- Apportionment: the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
- The Indian position
- Composite negligence is not contributory negligence
- Children and the identification doctrine
- The doctrine of alternative danger: Jones v. Boyce (1816)
- Other defences to negligence
Loading the lecture…