Mere Failure To Avoid Collision By Taking Some Extraordinary Precaution Does Not In Itself Constitute Contributory Negligence: Supreme

Case name and citation

K. Anusha Vs Regional Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.
LL 2021 SC 571

Key takeaways

• Contributory negligence is not applied if one person doesn’t take an extraordinary precaution to avoid a collision.

Background

• The High Court had observed that had the deceased driver of the car been vigilant and was following the traffic rules carefully, the accident would not have happened.
• So, it was ruled to be contributory negligence.
• This observation was challenged in an appeal.

Observation

• The Supreme Court while hearing the appeal observed that the findings of the High Court were not based on any evidence.
• The Court quoted a decision of the High Court of Australia in Astley v. Austrust Ltd to hold that where, by his negligence, one party places another in a situation of danger, which compels that other to act quickly to extricate himself, it does not amount to contributory negligence, if that other acts in a way which, with the benefit of hindsight is shown not to have been the best way out of the difficulty.

Order

• The Court revised the findings on the question of contributory negligence.
• A compensation of Rs. 50,89,960 was allowed to the claimants.

Questions

1. What are your views on this judgement?
2. Which court do you agree with the most?

Share your views in the comments section below.