Home > Fighting a Claim > Mitigation of Liability Through 'Contributory Negligence'

Mitigation of Liability Through 'Contributory Negligence'

By: J.A.J Aaronson - Updated: 20 Jun 2012 | comments*Discuss
 
Mitigation Liability Contributory

Defending a business from a claim of negligence for the injury, disease, or death of an employee is clearly not an activity which many employers would relish. However, it is important for all employers to have some knowledge of the legal system in order to ensure that they are prepared to defend themselves against incorrect or unsubstantiated claims.

Complete and Partial Defence

Potential defences against occupational injury claims can be divided into two categories: complete and partial defences. The former, if successful, will entirely clear the employer of liability and thus ensure that no damages must be paid, while the latter will mitigate the employer's liability and thus reduce the total damages that must be paid. This article concerns mitigation of liability through contributory negligence, while another article in this section looks at the 'volenti non fit injuria', which is a complete defence.

The principle of contributory negligence was established in law in the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. It deals with cases in which an injury is caused by the actions of two or more parties. In essence, the Act states that in these situations the liability must be divided between the parties, and that this should be done in a way that is commensurate with the blame attached to each of those parties. It follows that the liability for any damages awarded must also be divided in the same way.

Contributory negligence can be used as a defence in cases where both the employee and the employer are to blame for the injury. The most common situations in which this might apply are those where the employee has failed to abide by the statutory requirements that apply to them, while the employer was also at fault, for example by failing to provide adequate safety measures or sufficient training. If this claim is upheld by the court, the employer can suggest that any damages awarded to the complainant should be reduced by an amount that represents the portion of the blame assumed by the employee.

Precedent

An example may help in explaining the principle of contributory negligence. The most common precedent cited in court in these cases is that of Uddin v. Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers Ltd. In this case, an employee was injured by machinery in a part of the factory in which he was not authorised to work. The employee sued the company for breaching safety regulations and won, but the court stated that the damages awarded to the complainant should be reduced by 80% in order to reflect the amount of blame assumed by the employee for straying outside of the area in which he was authorised to be.

Obviously, a contributory negligence defence should only be the first choice in instances where it is clear that the employee has failed to abide by their responsibilities. If the employer contends that they have, in fact, fulfilled all that is required of them then it may be possible to mount a defence of volenti fit non injuria in which the defendant may be acquitted completely.

Related Articles in the 'Fighting a Claim' Category...
Share Your Story, Join the Discussion or Seek Advice..
Why not be the first to leave a comment for discussion, ask for advice or share your story...

If you'd like to ask a question one of our experts (workload permitting) or a helpful reader hopefully can help you... We also love comments and interesting stories

Title:
(never shown)
Firstname:
(never shown)
Surname:
(never shown)
Email:
(never shown)
Nickname:
(shown)
Comment:
Validate:
Enter word:
Topics
Comments
  • DEE
    Re: Compensation Payouts Held in Trust
    How do you go about if your child has attained the age of 18 years and the lawyer handling the case has refused any…
    15 October 2017
  • Ant
    Re: 'No-Win, No-Fee' - Too Good to be True?
    I was pressurised into buying a product that was sold to me with the understanding I had a 14 day cool off period.…
    4 October 2017
  • Retired61
    Re: What Can You Claim For?
    Many thanks for your reply. Even if the builders have a right to access to my property (which I dispute), should they not have to apply…
    15 November 2016
  • CompensationCulture
    Re: Problems with Personal Injury Claims
    shunty - Your Question:My car got shunted at a roundabout by a driver who came up the motorway slipway too fast. The…
    2 November 2016
  • shunty
    Re: Problems with Personal Injury Claims
    My car got shunted at a roundabout by a driver who came up the motorway slipway too fast. The driver admitted liability.…
    1 November 2016
  • Rainey Smith
    Re: The Victim Contact Scheme
    What would a huge increase in relevant traffic mean for your business? If I could greatly increase the amount of customers who are…
    16 June 2016
  • CompensationCulture
    Re: What Can You Claim For?
    Retired61 - Your Question:Without prejudice. Builders working next door have removed and killed most of a beautiful Virginia creeper on…
    14 June 2016
  • Retired61
    Re: What Can You Claim For?
    Without prejudice. Builders working next door have removed and killed most of a beautiful Virginia creeper on the wall they are working…
    13 June 2016
  • Nusrat Jabeen
    Re: Damages Under the Human Rights Act
    Social services forced me to leave my house , police were also used . When I did complaint against this incident , social…
    26 July 2015
  • Liza Morris
    Re: The Victim Contact Scheme
    We are Internet Marketing experts who can help you answer these questions, drive mass traffic to your site, and dramatically increase…
    29 August 2014