Contributory negligence occurs when a patient or his personal attendant shows unreasonable conduct or absence of ordinary care, which when combined with the negligence of the doctor, has contributed to the injury. In this case, the patient’s or attendant’s negligence should be the direct, proximate cause and without which the injury would not have occurred.
So, contributory negligence occurs when both the doctor and patient are negligent. The direct or proximate cause of the injury should be the patient’s negligence, which means that if the patient was not negligent, the injury could have been prevented.
Contributory negligence usually occurs when the doctor is negligent and the patient:
Contributory negligence is a defence for doctor’s negligence in civil cases. However, from case to case, the liability of a doctor may vary from complete non-liability to substantial liability for the damages. Under the doctrine of comparative negligence, the court has the right to hold both parties liable for their negligent actions.
Limitations / Exceptions to contributory negligence:
A. The doctor will be held guilty in the following conditions:
1. The doctor failed to provide proper instructions to the patient
2. Last clear chance doctrine: It is applicable when the doctor fails to take necessary action to prevent damage due to a negligent act of the patient, even after getting a clear chance to take such action.
B. The doctor/person will not be held guilty in the following conditions:
1. Avoidable consequences rule: It occurs when an injury is caused due to doctor’s negligence, and the patient has done a negligent act, which further aggravated the injury caused by the doctor, and the patient could have avoided the consequence by not doing such act. In such cases, the doctor need not pay anything, and the patient will be held guilty.
2. Good Samaritan doctrine: A person who assists another person who is in serious danger cannot be charged with contributory negligence. unless such assistance is reckless or rash.
So, contributory negligence occurs when both the doctor and patient are negligent. The direct or proximate cause of the injury should be the patient’s negligence, which means that if the patient was not negligent, the injury could have been prevented.
Contributory negligence usually occurs when the doctor is negligent and the patient:
- Fails to give an accurate medical history, and as a result, the doctor may misdiagnose or mistreat the patient.
- Fails to follow the doctor’s instructions
- Refuses to take the treatment
- Leaves the hospital against doctor’s advice
- Does not inform the doctor or seek further medical assistance if the symptoms persist or worsens.
Contributory negligence is a defence for doctor’s negligence in civil cases. However, from case to case, the liability of a doctor may vary from complete non-liability to substantial liability for the damages. Under the doctrine of comparative negligence, the court has the right to hold both parties liable for their negligent actions.
Limitations / Exceptions to contributory negligence:
A. The doctor will be held guilty in the following conditions:
1. The doctor failed to provide proper instructions to the patient
- Ex: Doctor applies a tight plaster cast (doctor is negligent) to the patient’s leg and did not tell the patient to inform if he develops any numbness (no proper instruction). The patient develops numbness and has not informed the doctor (patient is negligent). After few days patient developed a permanent injury.
2. Last clear chance doctrine: It is applicable when the doctor fails to take necessary action to prevent damage due to a negligent act of the patient, even after getting a clear chance to take such action.
- Ex: Doctor applies a tight plaster cast (doctor is negligent) to the patient’s leg and told the patient to inform if he develops any numbness (gave proper instruction). The patient developed numbness and has not informed the doctor (patient is negligent). Next day patient informed the doctor, but the doctor did not remove the cast and said he was busy (There was a clear last chance, but the doctor neglected again). After few days patient developed a permanent injury.
B. The doctor/person will not be held guilty in the following conditions:
1. Avoidable consequences rule: It occurs when an injury is caused due to doctor’s negligence, and the patient has done a negligent act, which further aggravated the injury caused by the doctor, and the patient could have avoided the consequence by not doing such act. In such cases, the doctor need not pay anything, and the patient will be held guilty.
- Ex: A patient had a lacerated wound. The doctor examined the patient and had not done any dressing or provided any antibiotics (the doctor is negligent). However, the doctor instructed the patient to avoid contamination and asked him to visit the clinic next week. When the patient went home, he applied cow dung on his wound every day thinking that the wound would heal faster and didn't visit the doctor after one week. The wound got infected and developed pus and aggravated the injury.
- Here, despite the doctor being negligent in the first instance, the patient is responsible for his injury as he performed an unnecessary, avoidable act, which aggravated the injury. The doctor need not pay anything.
2. Good Samaritan doctrine: A person who assists another person who is in serious danger cannot be charged with contributory negligence. unless such assistance is reckless or rash.
- Ex: A person was travelling on a road and saw a car accident, where the victim was unconscious and was stuck inside the car. He called the ambulance. The paramedical staff instructed him not to mobilize the victim until they arrived. Meanwhile, the car was caught in fire (serious danger), and the person tried to remove the victim carefully out of the car (assisted the victim and was not reckless). However, the victim already had a cervical bone fracture due to the accident, which got mobilized while he was being removed out of the car and as a result, suffered an injury to the spine that led to paralysis (victim’s injury was aggravated). In such a case, the good samaritan doctrine would apply and the person who tried to help, will not be charged under contributory negligence.