This document discusses the history and development of the legal doctrine of contributory negligence. It began under common law as a complete defense if the plaintiff contributed to their own injury. Later rules like the last opportunity rule and ability for courts to apportion liability between negligent parties developed to avoid the harshness of this. The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 gave courts power to apportion liability. Malaysian law followed similar developments, initially following the last opportunity rule but now allowing reduction of damages under section 12(1) of the Civil Law Act 1956 if fault is partly the plaintiff's.

1. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCECONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
It is unreasonable conduct of P which contribute to his
injury along with D`s negligence.eg.D is negligence for
the accident but P is C.N for his injury in that accident
by not wearing seat belt or helmet.
Froom v Butcher
Negligence depends on D``s breach of duty
C.Negligence is a man`s carelessness in looking after
his own safety.
The Effect: If succesful the amount of damage can be
reduce(apportion)
Development of C. Negligence
Common Law
Butterfield v Forester
C.N operates as a
complete defence.
If P had contributed to his
injury, he cannot recover
completelyy.
Here P ride horse violently
and hit a pole which was
putt on the road by D.P if
slow down can avoid.
Davies v Mann
Rule of Last Opportunity.
To avoid harshness of
previous ruling ,this rule was
development. It means,the
party whose negligence came
last in time is liable.Here P
fastened his donkey.D
negligently ride his horse and
collided with donkey and
donkey died.D liable.
Marine
Conventions Act
(1911)
Courts were given
power to apportion
the liablity between
two colliding vessels.
The Volute case
applied this rule.
Law Reform (Contributory
Negligence)Act 1945
Finally this Act was enacted.Court were
given power to apportion liability between
2 negligent party who contribute to the
same damage.
Davies v Swan Motor Co. applied this
Provision.
Malaysian
Previously
The Last Opportunity
Rule was followed.
Khatijah bte. Abdullah
V Lee Leong Toh &
Anor (1940)
P`s right arms injured
while in the D`s bus as
passenger.Bus involve in
accident.D pleaded C.N.
but court applied this
rule.D if slow might have
avoid the accident.
Present Situation
s. 12 (1) Civil Law Act 1956 pari
materia with Law Reforms (C.N.)
Act
i.` any person suffers damage
ii.as a result
iii.partly of his own fault
iv.and partly of the fault of other
v. …..the court may reduce
damage recoverable to such
extent which it thinks just and
equitable…’
Henry Trading Co. Ltd. V
Harun
FC referred to this section.