Negligence is a key factor in personal injury cases. It refers to a person’s failure to exercise reasonable care leading to harm. When determining fault, courts use legal doctrines like comparative and contributory negligence to decide if a plaintiff can recover damages.
These rules can significantly affect compensation. Sometimes, even a small share of fault can reduce or eliminate a claim. A personal injury attorney can help assess fault and explain legal options, ensuring fair treatment.
Comparative Negligence
Comparative negligence is a legal rule that reduces a plaintiff’s compensation based on their share of fault in an accident. If a person is partially responsible for their injuries, their damages are adjusted accordingly.
There are two types: pure comparative negligence and modified comparative negligence. Under pure comparative negligence, a plaintiff can recover damages even if they are 99% at fault, though their percentage of blame reduces their award. In modified comparative negligence, compensation is only available if the plaintiff’s fault is below a certain threshold—usually 50% or 51%, depending on the state.
For example, if a driver is found 30% responsible for a car accident and the total damages are $100,000, they would receive $70,000. Different states follow different rules, making it essential to understand local laws.
Contributory Negligence
Now, let’s look at contributory negligence. This is a much stricter rule. If someone is partially at fault for an accident, they can’t recover any damages. It’s an all-or-nothing approach. Even if you’re only 1% at fault, you get nothing. As you can imagine, this rule can be very harsh.
A concept called “last clear chance” can sometimes soften the blow of contributory negligence. This rule says that even if someone was negligent, they could still recover if the other person had a clear opportunity to prevent the accident but didn’t. It’s a limited exception, though, and difficult to prove.
Contributory negligence is not widely used anymore. Most states have moved away from it because it’s considered too harsh. However, it’s still the law in a few jurisdictions.
Here’s an example: Imagine someone jaywalks and is hit by a car. Under contributory negligence, even if the driver was speeding, the jaywalker might not be able to recover anything because they were also negligent in crossing the street illegally.
Modified Comparative Negligence
Modified comparative negligence limits a plaintiff’s ability to recover damages if they are mostly at fault. States use either a 50% or 51% threshold—if a plaintiff’s fault meets or exceeds this limit, they cannot recover anything.
For example, if a driver is 40% at fault in a $100,000 accident, they would receive $60,000 in a modified comparative negligence state. However, they would receive nothing if they were 51% at fault in a 51% threshold state.
Impact on Damages
Comparative and contributory negligence reduces a plaintiff’s damages based on fault. Economic damages (medical bills, lost wages) and non-economic damages (pain and suffering) can be significantly affected.
Conclusion
To wrap up, comparative negligence divides responsibility, reducing damages based on fault.
Contributory negligence is harsher, barring recovery if there’s any fault. Modified comparative negligence offers a compromise, allowing some recovery below a fault threshold. Because these rules are complex and vary by location, it’s always best to speak with a lawyer to understand how they might apply to your situation.
