Contributory Negligence in Legal Context
undefined
Dr. Sonny Zulhuda
Definition
Statutory Provision
Elements
Agony of the Moment
C.N. by children
SYED AGIL BARAKBAH FJ
that there is
no question of contributory
negligence
on the part of the respondent, that
the appellant was wholly to blame for failing to
pay attention to the presence of other road
users and in consequence thereof failed to allow
sufficient space between his van to enable the
respondent to pass safely.
The learned Judge applied the correct
test
in
that the appellant had failed to prove that the
respondent did
not… take reasonable care of
himself
and
contributed
by that want of care to
his own injury.
The test for contributory negligence in the case
of a pedestrian is not whether he is under a duty
of care towards the defendant, but whether he
was acting as a reasonable man and with
reasonable care.
the appellant of a van grazed
against the respondent's left
arm while he was walking
beside his car in a street in
Ipoh. App argued CN because
Resp had raised his elbow prior
to accident.
D’s car turned from a side road, which is the exit road
from the new General Hospital in Kuching, into the main
Jalan Tun Haji Openg along which P (the motor-
scooterist) was approaching when the latter was only 60
feet from the junction, there could be no circumstances
in which P could be held to be blamed, even partially,
for the accident. The distance was too short for the P to
stop
D is an adult, licensed to drive and therefore presumably
he has acquired a knowledge not only of the Highway
Code but also of the ordinary precautions to be taken by
him for his own safety as well as for the safety of others.
If he obtrudes himself on to the main road in
circumstances which make it impossible for traffic
coming behind him to avoid a collision, then I do not…
think there can be any doubt as to his entire
responsibility for the accident
Two requirements:
Foreseeability
– case of
Jones v Livox
Quarries Ltd
[1952]
CN requires the foreseeability of harm to
oneself. A person is guilty of CN if he ought
reasonably to have foreseen that, if he did not
act as a reasonable, prudent man, he might be
hurt himself; and he must take into account the
possibility of others being careless.
Causation
– section 12(1) CLA 1956
Foo Kok Foo v Yap Hai Chwee
[1972] 1 MLJ 153
P did CN for extending his left arm outside the
window (Held 25-75%).
Siti Rohani bte Mohd Shah v Haji Zainal bin
Saifiee
[2001] 5 MLJ 8
No CN even though the P rode motorcycle without a
helmet and no valid license…
Low Kwan Moi v Ramli bin Jamil & Govt of
Malaysia
[1984] 1 MLJ 46
Police was liable for Negligence, but deceased also
for CN for jumping into the river. (Held 25%-75%).
The various follies of road users in a city… are so common
nowadays that they ought to be foreseeable and a prudent
man should, when traveling in such a place, keep both his
hands well inside his vehicle.”
Mohamed Azmi J:
“When traveling in a motor
car along a road where
traffic is heavy, whether as a
driver or a passenger, a
person ought to be conscious
that it is extremely
dangerous even to rest his
arm on the door window with
or without the elbow
protruding.
D cannot escape liability if the plaintiff, in the agony
of the moment tries to save himself by choosing a
course of conduct that proves to be the wrong one.
P does not contribute CN if he acted in a reasonable
apprehension of danger and the method by which he
tried to avoid it was a reasonable one
Case of
Govinda Raju v. Laws
[1966]
Court: “what was done or not done in the agony of the
moment cannot be fairly treated as negligence.”
Case of
Choh Nyee Ngah v Syarikat Beruntong S/B
[1989] 3 MLJ 112
Deceased was not in CN for he was In the agony between
remaining in the lorry driver’s seat or jumping outside the
lorry.
D turns right at a junction while P on
motorbike was oncoming from an
opposite direction. P tried to avoid and
swerved right but finally knocked the
rear side of D’s car.
Court: D was negligent, what P did could
not amount to a contributory negligence
“What was done or not done in the agony of the moment cannot
be fairly treated as negligence”
When a plaintiff is perplexed or agitated when exposed to danger by
the wrongful act of defendant, it is sufficient if he shows
such
judgment and control in attempting to avoid the accident as may
reasonably be expected of him in the circumstances
.
VT Singham J:
“… in attempting to escape
apprehension in this police
pursuit… the first plaintiff took
a serious risk to himself and
other road users in riding his
motorcycle at such fast speed.
“Therefore, this court finds the first plaintiff had also contributed
to the damage he had suffered. Accordingly, the damages have
to be reduced as this court finds having regard to the first
plaintiff ’s share in the responsibility for the damage (see s
12(1) of the Civil Law Act 1956).”
VT Singham J:
As for not wearing crash helmet, a reasonable
prudent motorist in the position of the first plaintiff
’s position would have foreseen that the wearing of
crash helmet might result is less harm or injury being
caused to his head if he is involved in a collision..
Accordingly, there should be a deduction on the
damages to be awarded for
his head injury
.”
Accordingly, liability should be apportioned at 75%
against the first defendant and 25% contributory on
the part of the first plaintiff for his
want of
reasonable care for his own safety
and
failure to
wear a crash helmet
that had contributed to his head
injuries.
The court takes into account the age of the Plaintiff
in considering whether he is liable for CN,
depending on the circumstances.
The standard of care of an older child is the degree
of care that may reasonably be expected from a
person in the plaintiff’s situation.
Lembaga Letrik Negara, Malaysia v. Ramakrishnan
[1982]
Court: the test is whether an ordinary child of the
respondent’s age and experience – neither a “paragon of
prudence” nor a “scatterbrain” – would have taken any
more than did the respondent.
Define Contributory Negligence from both
statutory and common law principles
What does the word “Negligence” indicate
here?
How does the court determine the amount of
contribution by the plaintiff?
What is the test for plaintiff’s act in agony of
the moment?
Can a child be liable of contributory
negligence?
Contributory Negligence (CN) refers to negligence that materially contributes to an injury, not just a breach of duty. It involves a person failing to take reasonable care of themselves, leading to their own injury. Legal cases like Ong Ah Long v Dr. S. Underwood [1983] and Kek Kee Leng v Teresa Bong Nguk Chin [1978] illustrate the application of contributory negligence principles. The Civil Law Act 1956 provides provisions on the apportionment of liability in such cases.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE Dr. Sonny Zulhuda
OUTLINE Definition Statutory Provision Elements Agony of the Moment C.N. by children
DEFINITION OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE CN is an expression which means negligence materially contributing to the injury Negligence here is not used in its usual meaning, not to mean a breach of duty Kek Kee Leng v Teresa Bong Nguk Chin [1978] D must show P did not, on his own interest, take reasonable care of himself and contributed by that want of care to his own injury. Ong Ah Long v Dr. S. Underwood [1983] Also defined in s. 12(1) Civil Law Act 1956
ONG AH LONG V DR. S. UNDERWOOD [1983] 2 MLJ 324 SYED AGIL BARAKBAH FJ that there is no question of contributory negligence on the part of the respondent, that the appellant was wholly to blame for failing to pay attention to the presence of other road users and in consequence thereof failed to allow sufficient space between his van to enable the respondent to pass safely. The learned Judge applied the correct test in that the appellant had failed to prove that the respondent did not take reasonable care of himself and contributed by that want of care to his own injury. The test for contributory negligence in the case of a pedestrian is not whether he is under a duty of care towards the defendant, but whether he was acting as a reasonable man and with reasonable care. the appellant of a van grazed against the respondent's left arm while he was walking beside his car in a street in Ipoh. App argued CN because Resp had raised his elbow prior to accident.
KEK KEE LENG V TERESA BONG NGUK CHIN [1978] 1 MLJ 61 D s car turned from a side road, which is the exit road from the new General Hospital in Kuching, into the main Jalan Tun Haji Openg along which P (the motor- scooterist) was approaching when the latter was only 60 feet from the junction, there could be no circumstances in which P could be held to be blamed, even partially, for the accident. The distance was too short for the P to stop D is an adult, licensed to drive and therefore presumably he has acquired a knowledge not only of the Highway Code but also of the ordinary precautions to be taken by him for his own safety as well as for the safety of others. If he obtrudes himself on to the main road in circumstances which make it impossible for traffic coming behind him to avoid a collision, then I do not think there can be any doubt as to his entire responsibility for the accident
S. 12(1) CIVIL LAW ACT 1956 ON APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY Where any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person a claim in respect of that damage shall not be defeated by reason of the fault of the person suffering the damage but the damages recoverable in respect thereof shall be reduced to such extent as the Court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant s share in the responsibility for the damage
ELEMENTS OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE Two requirements: Foreseeability case of Jones v Livox Quarries Ltd [1952] CN requires the foreseeability of harm to oneself. A person is guilty of CN if he ought reasonably to have foreseen that, if he did not act as a reasonable, prudent man, he might be hurt himself; and he must take into account the possibility of others being careless. Causation section 12(1) CLA 1956
SOME CASES OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE Foo Kok Foo v Yap Hai Chwee [1972] 1 MLJ 153 P did CN for extending his left arm outside the window (Held 25-75%). Siti Rohani bte Mohd Shah v Haji Zainal bin Saifiee [2001] 5 MLJ 8 No CN even though the P rode motorcycle without a helmet and no valid license Low Kwan Moi v Ramli bin Jamil & Govt of Malaysia [1984] 1 MLJ 46 Police was liable for Negligence, but deceased also for CN for jumping into the river. (Held 25%-75%).
FOO KOK FOO V YAP HAI CHWEE [1972] 1 MLJ 153 Mohamed Azmi J: When traveling in a motor car along a road where traffic is heavy, whether as a driver or a passenger, a person ought to be conscious that it is extremely dangerous even to rest his arm on the door window with or without the elbow protruding. The various follies of road users in a city are so common nowadays that they ought to be foreseeable and a prudent man should, when traveling in such a place, keep both his hands well inside his vehicle.
AGONY IN THE MOMENT D cannot escape liability if the plaintiff, in the agony of the moment tries to save himself by choosing a course of conduct that proves to be the wrong one. P does not contribute CN if he acted in a reasonable apprehension of danger and the method by which he tried to avoid it was a reasonable one Case of Govinda Raju v. Laws [1966] Court: what was done or not done in the agony of the moment cannot be fairly treated as negligence. Case of Choh Nyee Ngah v Syarikat Beruntong S/B [1989] 3 MLJ 112 Deceased was not in CN for he was In the agony between remaining in the lorry driver s seat or jumping outside the lorry.
AGONY OF THE MOMENT: GOVINDA RAJU V LAWS [1966] 1 MLJ 188 D turns right at a junction while P on motorbike was oncoming from an opposite direction. P tried to avoid and swerved right but finally knocked the rear side of D s car. Court: D was negligent, what P did could not amount to a contributory negligence What was done or not done in the agony of the moment cannot be fairly treated as negligence When a plaintiff is perplexed or agitated when exposed to danger by the wrongful act of defendant, it is sufficient if he shows such judgment and control in attempting to avoid the accident as may reasonably be expected of him in the circumstances.
SYARIZAN BIN SUDIRMIN & ORS V ABDUL RAHMAN BIN BUKIT & ANOR [2010] 8 MLJ 530 VT Singham J: in attempting to escape apprehension in this police pursuit the first plaintiff took a serious risk to himself and other road users in riding his motorcycle at such fast speed. Therefore, this court finds the first plaintiff had also contributed to the damage he had suffered. Accordingly, the damages have to be reduced as this court finds having regard to the first plaintiff s share in the responsibility for the damage (see s 12(1) of the Civil Law Act 1956).
SYARIZAN BIN SUDIRMIN & ORS V ABDUL RAHMAN BIN BUKIT & ANOR [2010] 8 MLJ 530 VT Singham J: As for not wearing crash helmet, a reasonable prudent motorist in the position of the first plaintiff s position would have foreseen that the wearing of crash helmet might result is less harm or injury being caused to his head if he is involved in a collision.. Accordingly, there should be a deduction on the damages to be awarded for his head injury. Accordingly, liability should be apportioned at 75% against the first defendant and 25% contributory on the part of the first plaintiff for his want of reasonable care for his own safety and failure to wear a crash helmet that had contributed to his head injuries.
CN INVOLVING CHILDREN The court takes into account the age of the Plaintiff in considering whether he is liable for CN, depending on the circumstances. The standard of care of an older child is the degree of care that may reasonably be expected from a person in the plaintiff s situation. Lembaga Letrik Negara, Malaysia v. Ramakrishnan [1982] Court: the test is whether an ordinary child of the respondent s age and experience neither a paragon of prudence nor a scatterbrain would have taken any more than did the respondent.
REVISE! Define Contributory Negligence from both statutory and common law principles What does the word Negligence indicate here? How does the court determine the amount of contribution by the plaintiff? What is the test for plaintiff s act in agony of the moment? Can a child be liable of contributory negligence?
![Negligence Liability in Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932]](/thumb/198881/negligence-liability-in-donoghue-v-stevenson-1932.jpg)
