Comparative & Contributory Negligence
Comparative and contributory negligence are defenses available to mitigate the
amount that a defendant may have to pay to a plaintiff for damages. Each of these
defenses is based on an assessment of fault towards the plaintiff. Depending upon
the laws of the state where the case is venued one of three different versions
of these defenses may be applicable. Pure contributory negligence is, by far,
the most oppressive to the plaintiff. In those states that allow this defense
if a defendant can prove that the plaintiff is one iota to blame for the accident,
then he or she recovers nothing. For instance, if the evidence shows that a defendant
was speeding and went through a stop sign and that the plaintiff was only one
percent at fault because he or she didn't swerve or brake quickly enough, then
the plaintiff may be entitled to no recovery.
Less oppressive to the plaintiff and more prevalent are the two different versions
of comparative negligence. The first version is what is commonly known as "pure"
comparative negligence. In "pure" comparative negligence, the award of damages
to the plaintiff will be reduced in direct proportion to the plaintiff's percentage
of fault, no matter what the ratio. For instance, if you are 30 percent at fault
for an accident, you could recover 70 percent of your damages. If you are 70 percent
at fault for an accident, you could recover only 30 percent of your damages. All
of the other parties alleged to be at fault would then be responsible for paying
you 30% of your total damages, apportioned between them in proportion to the amount
of fault assigned to them.
The last of these defenses is also fairly common amongst the states. It is known
as "limited" comparative negligence. With this version in order to be able to
receive any damages, the plaintiff must be no more than 50 percent at fault for
the injury. If the plaintiff is no more than 50 percent liable, but is still partially
at fault, then the award of damages will be adjusted according to the plaintiff's
percentage of fault and the plaintiff's award will be reduced accordingly. For
example, suppose a jury awards you $100,000 in damages as a result of a car accident,
but it finds you 30 percent at fault for your injuries because you did not properly
use a signal. After applying comparative negligence, you would be entitled to
$70,000 in damages - $100,000 minus 30 percent.
In the above example, the judge or jury determines the degree of the each party's
negligence and apportions to each party a percentage of the total damages suffered,
based on each party's percentage of fault for causing your injury. If you were
found to be 51 percent liable, you would be unable to collect any amount.