When two or more parties are negligent and their actions together cause damages, it is considered a case of composite negligence. - In composite negligence cases, each negligent party is jointly and severally liable for the full damages and the claimant can recover the full amount from any or all of the negligent parties. - The courts will not apportion damages between the negligent parties, though they may determine the extent of liability between the parties for contribution purposes if all are parties to the case.

1. Composite negligence
Introduction
When the negligence of two or more persons result in the same damages, there is said to be
“composite negligence” and the person responsible causing for such damage are known
composite Tortfeasors.
The courts in India have not necessarily followed the English law, and they have adopted the
rules which are in consonance with justice, equity and good conscience, according to Indian
conditions. Unlike in England, the distinction between joint tortfeasors and independent
tortfeasors is not of much relevance in India, because the rules in India being different, the
question of such a distinction has seldom arisen. For this reason, the term composite negligence
has been used to cover cases whether they are of negligence by joint tortfeasors ,or independent
tortfeasors.2
When injury is caused by the wrongful act of two parties, the plaintiff is not bound to a strict
analysis of the proximate or immediate cause of the event to find out whom he can sue. subject o
the rules as to remoteness of damage,the plaintiff is entitled to sue all or any of the negligent
person and it is no concern of his whether there is ant duty of contribution or indemnity as
between those person, though in any case he cannot recover on the whole more than his whole
damage. He has a right to recover full amount of damages from any of the defendant.31
Nature of liability in case ofcomposite negligence
The liability of the composite negligence is joint and several. No one of the tortfeasors is
allowed to say that there should be apportionment, and his liability should be limited to the
extent he is at fault. The judgement against the composite tortfeasors is for a single sum without
1 R k bangia,”lawof torts”
2parsani devi v.the state of Haryana,(1973)
3JusticeG.P.Singh ‘Law of Torts’ 27th Edition (2016).

2. any apportment in accordance with the fault, if he so choose .the defendant, who has paid more
than his share of the liability may claim contribution from the other defendents.
Further if an injured party shows that one or the other or both of two persons injured him, but
cannot say which of them it was, then hi is not defeated all together. He can call each of them for
an explanation. thus if a passenger in a bus is injured when the bus collided with another vehicle
and when he is not know of the facts as to how the collision had taken place ,he can sue both the
drivers and their employers for damages. In such case ,the plaintiff cannot be defeated by the
simple device of the defendants’’ abstaining to place the true facts before the court. If they do
not disclose relevant information, adverse interference can be drawn and the court may hold that
both were to blame for the accident and liable to pay damages to the plaintiff.
the legal position in respect of several tort –feasors causing the same or indivisible damage is one nearly
the same as in respect of joint tortfeasors .the following principles are to be kept in view in
respect of the liability of joint tort-feasors and several tort-feasors causing the same or
indivisible damage:
joint tort feasors are jointly and severally liable for the whole damages resulting from the tort.
They may be sued jointly or severally. if sued jointly , the damages may be levied from all or
either .each is responsible for the injury sustained.
Contributory negligence and composite negligence distinguish
It has already been noted that when the plaintiff himself is guilty of negligence as regards his
own safety and his own lack of care contributes to the harm which he has suffered, he is guilty of
contributory negligence. In such a case ,the defendant is negligent towards the plaintiff and the
plaintiff is also negligent towards his own self.
When a person is injured as a result of the negligence ot two or more other persons, there is
composite negligence on the part of the persons causing damages. According to shiv dayal,j.2
“where a person is injured without any negligence on his part but as a result of combined effects
of the negligence of two other reasons, it is not a case of contributory negligence in that sense. it
is a case of what has been styled by palloch as “injury by composite negligence”.
2 Manjula devi bhutta v. manjusri raha ,(1968) A.C.J. 1,M.P. at 20.

3. A case of composite negligence is sometimes confused with contributory negligence. The
distinction between the two was well brought out bu balakrishan c.j .i in T.O . Anthony v.
karvarnan3 as follows:
“Composite negligence refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a
person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrongdoers, it is said that
the persons was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a
case , each wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire
damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such
a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer
separately,nor is it necessary foe the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer
separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury , partly due to the negligence on the
part of another person or persons , and partly as a result of his own negligence , them the
negligence on the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his
contributory negligence. Where the injured party is guilty of some negligence, his claim for
damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages
recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stand reduced in proportion to his contributory
negligence.”
In assessing damages against joint tort feasors or several tort feasors causing damage one set of
damages will be fixed, and they must be assessed according to the aggregate amount of the
injury resulting from the common act or acts.4 The damages cannot be apportioned so as to
award one sum against one defendant and another against the other defendant, though they may
have been guilt in unequal degree.5 If two omnibuses are racing , and one of them runs over a
man who is crossing the road and has no time to get out of the way, the injured person has a
remedy against proprietors of both or either of the omnibuses.6
Those who are sued cannot insist on having the others joined as defendants. The mere omissions
to sue some of them will not disentitle the plaintiff from claiming full relief against those who
3 (2008) 3 SCC 748 para 6 : (2008) 3 SCC 748.
4 Subbaya v.verayya, (1935) MWN 1043 , 42 Mad LW 17.
5 Clark v.newsam, (1847) 1 Ex. 131
6 PER CRESWELL,J., in thorogood v. bryan,(1849) 8 CB 115,121

4. are sued.7 The fact the claim is barred by limitations as against one will not in itself free the
others from liability.8
Claimant rights in composite negligence
Joint tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable for the whole damage resulting from the tort
.they may be sued jointly or severally. If sued jointly, the damage may be levied from all or
either.9 Each is responsible for the injury sustained.10
In a suit for “composite negligence” the plaintiff is not bound to a strict analysis of the
proximate or immediate cause of the event to find out whom he can sue. Subject to the rules as
to remoteness of damage, he is entitled to sue all or any of the negligent persons and it is no
concern of his weather there is any duty of contribution or indemnity as between those persons,
though in any case he cannot recover on the whole more thah his whole damage . He has a right
to recover the full amount of damages from any of the defendants.11
Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & ors12
Supreme Court in a case dealt with the issue of claimant’s right to recover compensation from
one of the joint tort feasors, particularly when in accident, composite negligence of drivers of
other vehicle was proved.
In the instant cases, injuries were sustained by the claimants when two vehicles - bus and tractor-
truck collided with each other. The present case was held to be that of composite negligence
where injuries were caused to the claimants by combined wrongful act of joint tort feasors.
It was observed that in a case of accident caused by negligence of joint tort feasors, all the
persons who aid or counsel or direct or join in committal of a wrongful act, are liable. In such
case, the liability is always joint and several. The extent of negligence of joint tort feasors in
such a case is immaterial for satisfaction of the claim of the plaintiff/claimant and need not be
7 Subayya v. verayya ,(1935) MWN 1043,42 M ad LW 17.
8 Harihar pershad v.bholi pershad.(1907) 6 CLJ 383.
9 Hume v. oldcre, (1816 ) 1 stark 351
10 De bodreughnam v. le acedekin . (1302) YB 30 ,Edw 1 fo 106
11 PalghatCoimbatore transportco. ltd.V. narayanan,ILR(1939) Mad 306.
12 Khenyei Vs. New India AssuranceCo.Ltd., AIR 2015 SC P.2261.

5. determined by the Court. However, in case all the joint tort feasors are before the court, it may
determine the extent of their liability for the purpose of adjusting inter-se equities between them
at appropriate stage. The liability of each and every joint tort feasor vis-a-vis plaintiff/claimant
cannot be bifurcated as it is joint and several liability. In the case of composite negligence,
apportionment of compensation between tort feasors for making payment to the plaintiff is not
permissible as the plaintiff/claimant has the right to recover the entire amount from the easiest
targets/solvent defendant.
It was observed that there is a difference between contributory and composite negligence. In the
case of contributory negligence, a person who has himself contributed to the extent cannot claim
compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident to the extent of his own
negligence; whereas in the case of composite negligence, a person who has suffered has not
contributed to the accident but the outcome of combination of negligence of two or more other
persons.
The court in the instant matter had accordingly held as under:
1. In the case of composite negligence, plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any
one of the joint tort feasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint
tort feasors is joint and several.
2. In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two
tort feasors vis-a-vis the plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his
option whole damages from any of them.
3. In case all the joint tort feasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is
open to the court/tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the
drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tort
feasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the
sum from the other after making whole of payment to the plaintiff/claimant to the
extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both of them have been
impleaded and the apportionment/ extent of their negligence has been determined by
the court/tribunal, in main case one joint tort feasor can recover the amount from the
other in the execution proceedings.
4. It would not be appropriate for the court/tribunal to determine the extent of composite
negligence of the drivers of two vehicles in the absence of impleadment of other joint
tort feasors. In such a case, impleaded joint tort feasor should be left, in case he so

6. desires, to sue the other joint tort feasor in independent proceedings after passing of
the decree or award.
Arneil v. Paterson13
Two dogs, belonging to different owners , acting in concert attacked a flock of sheeps and
injured several . in an actionfor damages brought againt the owners of the dogs,one of them put
in a defence claiming that he is liable for one – half only of the damage.it was held that in law
each of the dogs occasioned the whole of the damages as the result of the two dogs acting
together, and that consequently each owner was liable for the whole.
Palghat Coimbatore transport co. ltd v. Narayanan14
As a result of a collision between two buses a passenger is one of the buses died. The accident
was the result of negligence of the drivers of both the buses. In a suit under the fatal accident act
by the representative of the deceased ,it was held that the owners of both the houses were liable
as the injury arose from the composite negligence.
In National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. P.A. Vergis & others15
it was laid down as follows:-
The case of composite negligence is one when accident occurs and resulting injuries and
damages flow without any negligence on the part of claimant, but as a result of negligence on the
part of two or more persons. In such a case, the tribunal should pass the composite decree
against owners of both vehicles”
In United India Fire & General Insurance Co., Ltd.,16
It was ruled that: “In a case of composite negligence, the injured has option to proceed against
all or any of the joint tort-feasors. Therefore, the insurer cannot take a defence that action is not
sustainable as the other joint tort-feasors have not been made parties”.
In amthiben v. superintending geophysicist , o.n.g.c,17
13 Arneil v. Paterson , (1931) AC 560
14 PalghatCoimbatore transportco.ltd v.arayanan,ILR(1939) Mad 306.
15 (1991) (1) ACC P.226
16 (1989) ACJ P.472.

7. “the gujrat high court apportment the damages payable by the composite totrfeasors ,but stated
that the liability of the tortfeasord was joint and several, and this apportionment was only for the
purpose of working out their respective liability inter se. this was a case of both of composite
and contributory negligence , and the assessment of danages was made accordingly ”
Conclusion
There are many cases when more than one party is negligent in an act
especiallyin case ofmotor vehicle accidents.itdefines the degree of distinction
between ontributory negligence and composite neglihgnce.
Claimant rights and remedy
17 1976 ACJ (72) (guj.)