Contributory negligence: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Contributory negligence is often regarded as unfair because under the doctrine a victim who is at fault to any degree, including only 1% at fault, may be denied compensation entirely.<ref name=Little2007>Little WBL. (2007). [http://law.campbell.edu/lawreview/articles/30-1-81.pdf “It is Much Easier to Find Fault With Others, Than to be Faultless Ourselves”: Contributory Negligence as a Bar to a Claim for Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability]. ''Campbell Law Review''.</ref>{{rp|85}} |
Contributory negligence is often regarded as unfair because under the doctrine a victim who is at fault to any degree, including only 1% at fault, may be denied compensation entirely.<ref name=Little2007>Little WBL. (2007). [http://law.campbell.edu/lawreview/articles/30-1-81.pdf “It is Much Easier to Find Fault With Others, Than to be Faultless Ourselves”: Contributory Negligence as a Bar to a Claim for Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability]. ''Campbell Law Review''.</ref>{{rp|85}} |
||
In England and Wales it is not possible to defeat a claim under contributory negligence and therefore deny the victim compensation. It does however allow for a reduction in damages recoverable to the extent that the court sees fit.<ref name=Act_1945>. [http://http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/8-9/28 "Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945"]. </ref> |
|||
Contributory negligence can be compared to [[comparative negligence]], where the negligence of the plaintiff is not a complete defense of the insured but can reduce the damages. |
Contributory negligence can be compared to [[comparative negligence]], where the negligence of the plaintiff is not a complete defense of the insured but can reduce the damages. |
||
Revision as of 00:47, 25 March 2012
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. (April 2009) |
 | The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (December 2010) |
| Part of the common law series |
| Tort law |
|---|
| (Outline) |
| Trespass to the person |
| Property torts |
| Dignitary torts |
| Negligent torts |
| Principles of negligence |
| Strict and absolute liability |
| Nuisance |
| Economic torts |
|
| Defences |
| Liability |
| Remedies |
| Other topics in tort law |
|
| By jurisdiction |
| Other common law areas |
Contributory negligence in common-law jurisdictions is defense to a claim based on negligence, an action in tort. It applies to cases where a plaintiff/claimant has, through his own negligence, contributed to the harm he suffered. For example, a pedestrian crosses a road negligently and is hit by a driver who was driving negligently.
Contributory negligence is often regarded as unfair because under the doctrine a victim who is at fault to any degree, including only 1% at fault, may be denied compensation entirely.[1]: 85
In England and Wales it is not possible to defeat a claim under contributory negligence and therefore deny the victim compensation. It does however allow for a reduction in damages recoverable to the extent that the court sees fit.[2]
Contributory negligence can be compared to comparative negligence, where the negligence of the plaintiff is not a complete defense of the insured but can reduce the damages.
Burden of proof
In some jurisdictions, the defendant has to prove the negligence of a plaintiff or claimant. In others, the burden is on a plaintiff to disprove his own negligence. The tortfeasor may still be held liable, if he had the last clear chance to prevent the injury (the last clear chance doctrine).
Availability
Contributory negligence is generally a defense to a tort of negligence. The defense is not available if the tortfeasor's conduct amounts to malicious or intentional wrongdoing, rather than to ordinary negligence. In England and Wales, it is not a defense to the tort of conversion or trespass to chattels. In the U.S., it is not a defense to any intentional tort.
Culture
"Contributory Negligence" was the title of a circa 1982 poem by Attila the Stockbroker, a performance poet in the U.K. The poem criticized a court decision where a rapist escaped heavy punishment and was ordered to pay only a fine on the ground that the women in some way provoked or contributed to the rape.
History
The doctrine of contributory negligence was dominant in U.S. jurisprudence in the 19th and 20th century.[1] The English case Butterfield v. Forrester is generally recognized as the first appearance, although ironically in this case the judge found the victim to be the sole proximate cause of the injury.[1]