Can contributory negligence be fixed on a road-accident victim merely because he was not wearing a helmet?

No. In the absence of any evidence to establish negligent riding on the part of the deceased, the question of apportioning contributory negligence on the sole ground of non-wearing of a helmet does not stand to reason; and even where fatal head injuries are sustained, that cannot automatically lead to an inference of contributory negligence. The party alleging it must show that the omission in some manner contributed to the accident.

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal — Contributory negligence — Non-wearing of helmet — Rash and negligent driving — Corroboration — Contributory negligence — Non-wearing of helmet — No evidence of negligent riding — Held: Contributory negligence cannot be apportioned on the sole ground that the deceased wore no helmet, absent evidence of negligent riding; even fatal head injuries do not automatically lead to an inference of contributory negligence. (¶10, ¶11) Rash and negligent driving — Driver's version uncorroborated — Conductor not examined — Held further: Where the occurrence witness stands unshaken in cross-examination and the Corporation examines only its driver, without the conductor or any independent witness, the finding of rash and negligent driving does not warrant interference. Appeal dismissed. (¶8, ¶13)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of The Branch Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Karanthai Depot, Thanjavur v. Thenmozhi — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India