Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2002ACJ780; (2001)3GLR2528
..... and analyse the evidence to ascertain whether me cause of tort in question or the reason for happening of the unfortunate road mishap is the outcome of sole negligence or contributory negligence or composite negligence. in order to appreciate this first part of the major issue involved in this group of ten appeals, we could not resist the temptation of highlighting the ..... and measuring the damages, particularly, in case of personal injuries and death in case of tortious act arising out of the use of motor vehicles.(1) sole negligence; (2) contributory negligence; and (3) composite negligence; insofar as the discharge of onus of proof in a case of claim based on tortious liability when several opponents or defendants are involved, it is necessary ..... the questioned accident occurred. it is not necessary for the plaintiff or the claimant to show that the defendant or the tort-feasor should be, fully, guilty of negligence. the negligence could be established even on the touchstone and yardstick of preponderance of probability. in a case of civil liability, the onus of proof of prima facie showing an element ..... rival contentions advanced before us by the learned advocates appearing for the parties, are, broadly, related and connected to two major aspects, like that :(i) issue of rash and negligent driving, and (ii) quantification of damages for the resultant injuries and harm suffered by the injured claimants and the heirs and legal representatives of three victims of fatal injuries, arising .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1975MP89; 1974MPLJ573
..... to apportion the blame under the maritime conventions act, 1911, which is applicable to india. should we then continue to apply the doctrineof contributory negligence in india as a rule of equity, justice and good conscience when it has been rejected in the country of its origin being a harsh ..... it was, however, more probably due to procedural and pleading points, like other anomalous parts of the old common law. the plaintiff could declare upon the defendant's negligence, as in davies v. mann, (1842) 10 m & w 546 or nuisance, as in butterfield v. forrester, (1809) 11 east 60. against that ..... doctrine of common law which is no longer regarded at its source as fair and equitable and enforced as such.' 8. the defence of contributory negligence that a plaintiff who is only partly to blame for the accident cannot recover any damages is on the face of it illogical. although many ..... is the duty of the driver of a vehicle to keep a good look-out for other traffic, especially at road crossings, junctions and bends; [charlesworth, negligence, 5th edition, p. 495). every driver of a motor vehicle is required by section 78 of the motor vehicles act to drive in conformity with the ..... 1) the driver of the bus was alone responsible for the accident; (2) the deceased alone was responsible; and (3) both were responsible, as negligence of both substantially caused the accident. the question is essentially a question of fact and the answer must necessarily depend upon the evidence and circumstances of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1974Mad344
..... it hit against the pole and thereby there was injury to the arm. it was, under those circumstances held that the boy was guilty of contributory negligence. this again would not help the respondents in the present case.15. rajammal v. associated transport co. 1970 acj 44 is a judgment of this ..... of the jury in the trial court holding that there was no contributory negligence. this decision would certainly not help the respondents.14. harris v. toronto transit commission, 1968 acj 264 is a decision by the supreme court of ..... slippery due to ice and he was run over by a motor vehicle. the court of appeal, british columbia took the view that there was contributory negligence, and reduced the quantum of compensation payable by the defendant. on further appeal by the widow of the deceased, the privy council restored the finding ..... prima facie interested witnesses. that apart, both of them have been made to say that the two victims came to be injured entirely due to their negligence. these two witnesses would not even apportion the blame between the injured and the lorry driver. they would through the entire blame on the injured. ..... which is common to both the vehicles, was pleaded as the third respondent. the tribunal held that the accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving of the lorry msw 234, that the two injured, viz., mrs. sydney victor and miss chandra were entitled to compensation of rs.8,000 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(3)MPLJ329
..... inasmuch as he was aware that some passengers are travelling on the top of the bus. after so holding the learned single judge determined the contributory negligence at 25%.13. in the case of oriental insurance co. ltd. v. jashmani kongari and anr. , a similar question arose and the learned single ..... contrary view. hence, we must hold that the tribunal was right in apportioning the liability on its finding as to the deceased being guilty of contributory negligence. 10. in this regard we may refer with profit to the decision rendered in the case of vijay singh v. haryana roadways and anr. ..... a greater amount of care and caution on the part of the driver is called for. their lordships further referred to the concept of contributory negligence which relates to application of maxim 'in pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis', which means both parties are equally to blame and neither can ..... sustaining multiple injuries and died on the following day, came to hold that the deceased died in the accident which resulted from the rash and negligent act of the driver and conductor of the bus. their lordships expressed the view that inviting the passenger to travel precariously on the top ..... passed by the tribunal. it is his alternative submission that even if the finding is accepted the same would be in the realm of contributory negligence and would not tantamount to breach of policy condition to ensure in total exoneration of the insurance company.9. to appreciate the rival submissions raised .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1974KAR1239; 1975(1)KarLJ3
..... diligence, have avoided the mischief which happened, the plaintiff's negligence will not excuse him'. (per lord penzance, radley v. l. & n. w. rly. co., (1877-1 ac 754))..................'14. coming now to ..... entitled to succeed for in pari delicto potior est conditio defendantis. on the other hand, 'though the plaintiff may have been guilty of negligence, and although that negligence may, in fact, have contributed to the accident, yet if the defendant could, in the result by the exercise of ordinary care and ..... and followed in our country, before the enactment of law reform (contributory negligence) act of 1945 by the parliament of united kingdom. in so far as the law in india is concerned no enactment similar to the ..... should go in mitigation of the damages payable as compensation to him. it is also well-settled that if an apportionment of compensation involving contributory negligence is impossible, on the material placed before the court, the plaintiff should fail. this is the position emanating from the common law of england ..... part of the bus against the leg of the claimant. the tribunal, however, while examining the question of what may be regarded as contributory negligence by the claimant-cyclist came to the conclusion that the claimant had contributed more to the accident than the vehicle driven by the third respondent .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(10)SC256; RLW2009(4)SC3625; 2009(10)SCALE675; (2009)9SCC221
..... west bengal medical council being an expert body having come to a specific finding vis-`-vis the respondents that there had been no deficiency or negligence on the part of the doctors and use of the drugs is demonstrative of the fact that respondents had not committed an offence under section ..... that mal-practice had been committed during the treatment of anuradha.(xiii) the high court committed a serious error in opining that there was no medical negligence on the part of respondents.(xiv) the allegation that the appellant had resorted to forgery was arrived at by the high court without any application of ..... around 370 pages.(x) at amri records of vital parameters like temperature, pulse, blood pressure; etc. were not maintained which itself is an act of gross negligence.(xi) respondent nos. 5 and 6, although were junior doctors, also followed the treatment guidelines set forth by the three seniors doctors, even though they were ..... involved with anuradha's treatment.(xix) the high court has failed to consider the previous decisions of this court on criminal negligence, as in the instant case gross negligence on the part of the respondents establishes the offence committed by them under section 304a of the indian penal code. (xx ..... ) negligence in fact in anuradha's treatment had been admitted by the respondents at different stages of the proceedings.a.3. submissions of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(2000)ACC18; 2001ACJ1014; JT2000(6)SC334; 2000(4)SCALE471b; (2000)5SCC712; 2000(2)LC1267(SC)
..... most of these cases were decided under public law domain, it would not make any difference as in the instant case, two vital factors, namely, police negligence as also the sub-inspector being in conspiracy are established as a fact,33. moreover, these decisions, as for example, nilabti behera v. state of orissa ..... political system today can place the state above law as it is unjust and unfair for a citizen to be deprived of his property illegally by negligent act of officers of the state without any remedy. from sincerity, efficiency and dignity of state as a juristic person, propounded in nineteenth century ..... the law as to indemnity and contribution as between joint tort-favors shall be enforceable by or against the crown and the law reform (contributory negligence) act, 1945 binds the crown. although the crown proceedings act preserves the immunity of the sovereign in person and contains savings in respect of the ..... precautions, the failure not only to provide additional precautions, but the failure to provide even the normal guard duty cannot but be termed as gross negligence. it is an omission to perform the statutory responsibility placed upon them by rule 48 of the madras prisons rules. it is a failure to ..... functions as the establishment and maintenance of jail was part of the sovereign functions of the state and, therefore, even if there was any negligence on the part of the officers of the state, the state would not be liable in damages as it was immune from any legal action .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2007(4)CHN842
..... , in our opinion, can be easily abused by the officer commanding the armed party. the possibility of numerous innocent persons being killed on the basis of wrong identification mistaken identity, negligence and sheer inaptitude cannot be ruled out. in our opinion, such a regulation would be clearly arbitrary and violative of articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of india. this ..... the common law or by statute. the law as to indemnity and contribution as between joint tortfeasors shall be enforceable by or against the crown and the law reform (contributory negligence) act, 1945 binds the crown. although the crown proceedings act preserves the immunity of the sovereign in person and contains savings in respect of the crown's prerogative and statutory .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1979Guj14
..... 500/- under this head.25. we accordingly hold that the appellant is entitled to additional compensation as under as a result of the foregoing discussion:-rs. 2400/- deduction for contributory negligence disallowed.rs 15000/- pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life.rs 31500/- future pecuniary loss.rs. 48900/-the appellant will accordingly be entitled to additional compensation ..... aged 16. she was only two years short of the age of majority and, therefore, she was near adult. this decision cannot, therefore, be read as laying down that contributory negligence is attributable to children, irrespective of whether they are of an age and possess understanding by virtue of which they could be reasonably expected to take precautions for their own ..... advanced age. under the circumstances, we do not find ourselves in agreement with the learned government pleader that, even if it is believed that this is a case of contributory negligence, the appellant's contribution to the accident should be assessed at 50%. in our opinion, if an integrated and comprehensive view of causation and responsibility is taken, it cannot be ..... the infant plaintiff. in reaching this conclusion, the supreme court of canada reversed the decision of the court of appeal for ontario which had held that the defense of contributory negligence failed because 'if one gives to a child an explosive substance, and the child. with a limited knowledge in respect to the likely effect of the explosion, is tempted .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1908)18MLJ497
..... shipowner in cases similar to the one before us is the same as that of an inland common carrier.43. whenever i refer to negligence, i mean negligence in not taking reasonable care or the care required by section 151 of the indian contract act.44. how far this common law ..... evade altogether the salutary policy of the common law. they cannot, therefore, by a special notice, exempt themselves from all responsibility in cases of gross negligence, or fraud; or by demanding an exorbitant price, compel the owner of the goods to yield to unjust and oppressive limitations of his rights. the ..... and such an action might still be maintained.'39. for any agreement to relieve the common carrier from this responsibility under the common law for negligence, among other things there must be consideration. in this case what is the consideration? not the undertaking to carry cargo. because the defendants as ..... is in possession as warehouse-keeper and enumerating the specific risks which the merchant was then to bear did not exempt the carrier from liability for negligence merely because the general words ' or otherwise' were added to the specific risks which the merchant was to bear at this stage. that decision ..... terms of their bill of lading for loss or damage occasioned to the goods whilst in course of landing and delivery by reason of the negligence of their servants. in the result the decree of the lower appellate court was affirmed under section 575, civil procedure code, and the plaintiff has now .....Tag this Judgment!