Plaintiff the Wrong-Doer

Introduction

The law of torts aims to make a person responsible for the loss caused by their fault. Normally, if the defendant’s wrongful act causes harm to the plaintiff, the defendant must compensate the plaintiff.

However, sometimes the plaintiff’s own wrongful act or carelessness contributes to the injury. In such situations, the law may reduce or deny compensation. This idea is often described as the defence of plaintiff the wrong-doer.

Meaning / Definition

The defence of plaintiff the wrong-doer applies when the plaintiff’s own wrongful conduct or negligence causes or contributes to the damage suffered.

In such cases, the defendant may not be fully responsible for the loss. The court may either deny the claim or reduce the compensation depending on the degree of fault of the plaintiff.

Modes or Types

Plaintiff Induces the Defendant to Commit the Wrong

In some situations, the plaintiff himself causes or encourages the defendant to commit the wrongful act. If the defendant would not have committed the act without the plaintiff’s involvement, the plaintiff cannot claim damages.

Plaintiff Solely Responsible for the Loss

If the entire loss occurs due to the plaintiff’s own negligence and the defendant had no duty to prevent the harm, the plaintiff cannot recover damages.

Contributory Negligence

Sometimes both the plaintiff and the defendant are at fault. In such cases, the loss is shared between them according to their level of fault. This principle is known as distributive justice.

Important Case Law

Boloch v. Smith

A person who strays away from the usual path while visiting someone’s house and enters another part of the land without permission cannot claim damages if he is injured by falling into an unguarded pit or well. The injury occurs due to his own carelessness.

However, if the occupier (person controlling the land) fails to maintain reasonable safety even for trespassers, he may still be liable.

Sayers v. Harlow

Mrs. Sayers became locked inside a public lavatory due to a defective lock. She attempted to climb over the door and while climbing down, she rested her weight on a toilet roll holder which rotated, causing her to fall and get injured.

The court held that the council was 75% responsible for the defective lock, while 25% of the injury was due to her own fault.

Stapley v. Gypsum Mines Ltd.

Two miners worked under a dangerous roof despite instructions not to do so. They were held 80% responsible for the accident because they ignored safety instructions.

Froom v. Butcher

A passenger injured in a car accident was not wearing a seat belt. The court reduced his compensation by 25% because wearing a seat belt could have reduced the injury.

Distinction / Comparison

Plaintiff the Wrong-Doer vs Contributory Negligence

• In plaintiff the wrong-doer, the plaintiff may be entirely responsible for the loss and may receive no compensation.
• In contributory negligence, both the plaintiff and defendant are partly responsible, so compensation is reduced rather than completely denied.

Practical Example

A person ignores a warning sign and enters a restricted construction area. He slips and gets injured due to loose material on the ground.

Since the person knowingly ignored the warning and entered the area, the court may hold that his own conduct contributed to the injury and reduce or deny compensation.

Summary

• The law of torts generally shifts the loss caused by the defendant’s fault to the defendant.
• If the plaintiff’s own wrongful conduct causes the injury, this defence may apply.
• A plaintiff cannot claim damages if he caused the wrongful act or the loss himself.
• If both parties are at fault, the loss is shared according to their level of responsibility.
• Courts apply the principle of distributive justice to fairly divide liability.
• Case laws such as Sayers v. Harlow and Froom v. Butcher show how courts reduce compensation due to the plaintiff’s negligence.