The Role of the Injured Party's Fault in the Apportionment of Damages in Tort Law: A Comparative-Historical Study between Common Law and Islamic Law

Authors: Alireza Tavakolinia

Abstract:

In order to understand the role of the injured party's fault in dividing liability, we studied its historical background. In common law, the traditional contributory negligence rule was a complete defense. Then the legislature and judicial procedure modified that rule to one of apportionment. In Islamic law, too, the Action rule was at first used when the injured party was the sole cause, but jurists expanded the scope of this rule, so this rule was used in cases where both the injured party's fault and that of the other party are involved. There are some popular approaches for apportionment of damages. Some common law countries like Britain had chosen ‘the causal potency approach’ and ‘fixed apportionment’. Islamic countries like Iran have chosen both ‘the relative blameworthiness’ and ‘equal apportionment’ approaches. The article concludes that both common law and Islamic law believe in the division of responsibility between a wrongdoer claimant and the defendant. In contrast, in the apportionment of responsibility, Islamic law mostly believes in equal apportionment that is way easier and saves time and money, but common law legal systems have chosen the causal potency approach which is more complicated than the rival approach but is fairer.

Keywords: Contributory negligence, common law, Islamic Law, Tort Law.

References:

[1] Emanuel van Dongen and Henriette Verdam, ‘The Development of the Concept of Contributory Negligence in Civil and Common Law a Comparison’ (2016) 57 Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies 326.
[2] Francis Wharton, a Treatise on the Law of Negligence (Kay and Brother, 1874) 265.
[3] MAF al-Maraqi, al-Anavin (al-Nashr al-Islami, 2004) vol 2, pp. 488-92.
[4] Reinhard Zimmermann, the Law of Obligations: Roman Foundation of the Civil Tradition (Oxford University Press, 1996) 1010.
[5] James Jr Fleming, Contributory negligence (1952) 62 Yale Law Journal, pp. 693-6.
[6] M.G. Golobardes and F.G. Pomar, ‘Contributory and Comparative Negligence in the Law and Economics Literature’, cited in Micheal Faure (ed), Tort Law and Economics (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009) 46, 49.
[7] PN Swisher, ‘Virginia should abolish the Archaic Tort Defense of Contributory Negligence and adopt a Comparative Negligence Defense in its Place’ (2011) 46 University of Richmond Law Review 359.
[8] James Goudkamp and Lewis Klar, ‘Apportionment of damages for contributory negligence: The causal potency criterion’ (2016) 53 (4) Alberta Law Review, pp. 849-858.
[9] William Schofield, ‘Davies v. Mann: Theory of Contributory Negligence’ (1890) Harvard Law Review 267.
[10] Judicial College of Victoria Civil Juries Charge Book at 2.1.8.1.
[11] Christopher J. Robinette and Paul G. Sherland, ‘Contributory or comparative: which is the optimal negligence rule?’ (2003) 24 Northern Illinois University Law Review 41, 43.
[12] Aaron Larson, ‘Negligence and tort law’, Expert Law (Web Page, May 8, 2018) .
[13] Julia Kagan, ‘Comparative Negligence’, Investopedia (Web Page, March 11, 2020) .
[14] Victor E Schwartz, ‘Strict Liability and Comparative Negligence’ (1974) 42 Tennessee Law Review 171).
[15] ‘Comparative & Contributory Negligence’, Justia (Web Page, April 2018) .
[16] E. Shoaryan and Y. Molaei, ‘Motale'e Tatbiqi Mabani Qaede Taqlil Khesarat’ (2011) 2 Feqh and Hoquq Eslami, pp. 131-55.
[17] Naser Katoozian, Civil Law, extra contractual obligations (Moasese Enstesharat and Chap University of Tehran, 2006) vol 1, pp. 502-3.
[18] Mahmood Hekmat Nia, Civil responsibility in Imamieh jurisprudence (Institute of Islamic Sciences and Culture, 2008) pp. 216-7.
[19] MA Seraj, Zeman al-Odvan fi al-Feqh al-Islami (Daar al-Seqafa, 1990) 225.
[20] SD al-Sarakhsi, al-Mabsut (Daar al-Marefa, 1993) vol 27, pp. 14-6.
[21] Ibn Qodamah al-Moqadasi, al-Sharh al-Kabir (Daar al-Ketab al-Arabi, 1283) vol 9, pp. 493-4.
[22] Sheykh Toosi, al-Mabsoot fi al-Fiqh al-Imamiyya (Aniat b-Nashreh al-Maktaba al-Mortazaviah, 1984) vol 7, pp. 165-6.
[23] MBH al-Horr al-Ameli, Vasael al-Shia (Maktabat al-Islamiyah, 1989) vol 19, pp. 175-179.
[24] S.A. Tabatabaei, Riaz al-Masael (Dar al-Haadi, 1992) vol 10, pp. 411-5.
[25] Quran, Surah Fatir, Verse 18.
[26] HTY Fazel Aabi, Kashf al-Romuz (Moasese al-Nashr al-Islami, 1996) vol 2, 642.
[27] SQ al-Mousavi al-Khouyi, Mabaani Takmalat al-Menhaj (Moasese Ehya Asaar al-Emam al-Khouyi, 2001) vol 2, pp. 290-301.
[28] Sheykh Sadooq, Man La Yahzaraho al-Faqih (Manshurat Jama'at al-Modaresin, 1984) vol 4, pp. 169-70.
[29] Z.D. Shahid Saani, al-Roza al-Bahia (Moasese al-A'lami al-Matbuat, 2012) vol 10, pp. 132-7.
[30] SA Qodsi and S. Noroozi, ‘Measuring drivers liability based on their degree of fault’ (2017) 13 Hoquq Keyfari, pp. 49–51.
[31] CD Baker, Tort
[Concise Course Texts] (Sweet & Maxwell, 5th ed, 1991) pp. 187-8.
[32] S.H. Safaei and H. Badini, ‘criterion for division of responsibility assuming the multiplicity of causes’ (2018) 84 Faslname Didgahaye Hoquq Qazaei 161.
[33] IB al-Torabelsi, al-Mohazab (cited in Selselah al-Yanaby al-Feqhiya, 1991) vol 24, 156.
[34] Mahmood Kazemi, The Impact of injured party's fault on Civil Liability (2006) 28 Imam Sadegh University 109, 136.
[35] James Goudkamps, ‘Apportionment of damages for contributory negligence: a fixed or discretionary approach? ’ (2015) 35 Legal Studies, pp. 621-643.
[36] Smith v. Pelah (1746) 93 E.R. 1170/1171.
[37] Butterfield V Forrester (1809) 103 E.R. 926.
[38] Smith v. Smith, 19 Mass. (2 Pick.) 621 (1824).
[39] Davis v. Mann (1842) 10 M & W 546.
[40] Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2000) 1 AC 360.
[41] Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
[42] Jackson v McDonald's Australia (2014) NSWCA 162.
[43] Wrongs (Contributory Negligence) Act 1951 (Vic).
[44] Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic).
[45] Maritime Code of Iran 1964 (IRN).
[46] Froom v Butcher
[1976] 1 QB 286.
[47] Davies v Swan Motor Co (Swansea) Ltd
[1949] 2 KB 291.
[48] (1976) QB 286 (CA) 296.
[49] Sloan v Triplett (1985) SLT 294
[50] Hallowell v The Nominal Defendant (Queensland)
[1983] 2 Qd R 266 – 268.
[51] The Motor Accidents (Liabilities and Compensation) Act 1973 (Tas)
[52] Galaske v O'Donnell
[1994] 1 SCR 670 (SCC) 682.
[53] Decision 717 (26/04/2011).