Question

Principle: One has to compensate another for the injury caused due to his wrongful act. The liability to compensate is reduced to the extent the latter has contributed to the injury through his own negligence, This is the underlying principle of contributory negligence.

Facts: Veerappa owns a farm at a distance of half a furlong from the railway track. He stored in his land the stacks of dried up straw after the cultivation as is normal in farming. One day when the train was passing through the track, the driver was negligently operating the locomotive by allowing it to emit large quantities of spark. The high wind, normal in open fields, carried the sparks to the stacks stored by Veerappa and the stacks caught fire thereby causing extensive damage. Veerappa filed a suit against the Railways claiming damages. The Railways while acknowledging liability alleged contributory negligence on the part of Veerappa.

Options

• Veerappa was not liable since his use of land was lawful

• Veerappa's farm being at a reasonable distance from the railway track, he cannot be held responsible for the high winds

• Veerappa should have anticipated the possibility and hence he is liable for contributory negligence

• None of the above

Answer 1

Veerappa's farm being at a reasonable distance from the railway track, he cannot be held responsible for the high winds

Explanation:

The fact that firm veerappa’s firm was at a distance of  Half a furlong which is a reasonable distance, cannot make Veerappa liable.