Introduction

A fundamental aspect of human behavior is that we all carry a duty to act in a reasonably prudent manner to avoid causing injury to others;this implies a positive duty,too,that the same standard should also apply to ourselves for our own safety.A reasonably prudent person would not,when realizing that there is danger,plunge himself into that danger,knowing that the danger has been caused by the negligence of another person.If he does,it cannot be fairly said that he would equally be entitled to recover damages as a totally innocent person would.The fundamental notion in this is: if one needs help and wants to be helped,he may,or may not get it,depending on availability of help;but if he does not want help (not necessarily that he does not desire to be helped),and in a way that it appears to others that he throws away all possibilities to help himself,he may not blame others for failing to take appropriate measures to help him by avoiding injuries.Hence developed the common law argument as a defense to a charge of negligence: the defendant fails to take reasonable care toward the plaintiff,but the plaintiff himself has also failed to take adequate precautions to avoid injuries to himself.They both can be viewed as joint-tortfeasors,except that in such a case,the plaintiff’s duty seems to be over and above everybody else’s.

For that reason,a charge of the common law defense of contributory negligence would generally suppress a plaintiff’s allegation that the defendant is negligent in causing the injuries to which the plaintiff himself also contributes.(https://www.daowen.com)