- Once the court comes to the conclusion that the case is one of composite negligence, damages cannot be apportioned. The liability in the case of composite negligence normally should not be apportioned, as both the wrongdoers are jointly and severally liable for the whole loss. The claimant is entitled to recover the entire amount of compensation from all or any of the joint tortfeasors. It is the choice of the petitioner either to claim compensation from both the tortfeasors or any of them. Tentativeness for the purpose of contribution to joint tortfeasors does not at all affect the right of the petitioner to recover the full damages
- In the case of a breach of policy, the insurer is required to establish its defense with regard to breach of policy conditions. Not only does it have to establish there is a breach of policy, but such breach has to be so fundamental that it puts an end to the contract and that such breach had caused the accident. No evidence led to prove that the breach in the form of carrying some excess passengers was so fundamental in nature that it resulted in causing the accident and thus putting an end to the policy itself. The insurance company is liable
- .The deceased was not driving but traveling in the vehicle. It is clear that there was no act or omission on the part of the deceased to contribute to the said accident. It is not a case of contributory negligence. Once the court comes to the conclusion that the case is one of composite negligence , damages cannot be apportioned. The claimant is entitled to recover the entire amount of compensation from all or any of the joint tortfeasors. It is the choice of the petitioner either to claim compensation from both the tortfeasors or any of them
- (2023-2)210 PLRIJ 009
Full Judgment for Online Subscribers (Click to subscribe)
