Comparative & Contributory Negligence in Personal Injury Lawsuits under Personal Injury
Comparative & Contributory Negligence in Personal Injury Lawsuits
Overview
Negligence is the most common basis for personal injury lawsuits. It involves proving that the defendant breached a duty of care, causing harm to the plaintiff. However, sometimes the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to their injury. This is where comparative negligence and contributory negligence doctrines come into play.
1. Contributory Negligence
Definition:
Under contributory negligence, if the plaintiff is found to have any degree of fault, even as little as 1%, they are completely barred from recovering damages from the defendant.
How It Works:
If plaintiff’s negligence contributed to the injury, the plaintiff receives no compensation.
This is a very harsh rule and applies only in a few states today.
Case Law Example:
Butterfield v. Forrester, 11 East 60 (K.B. 1809)
This early English common law case established the contributory negligence doctrine, barring recovery if plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care.
Davis v. Mann, 150 Va. 186, 142 S.E. 275 (1928)
Virginia courts upheld contributory negligence as a complete bar to recovery.
2. Comparative Negligence
Definition:
Comparative negligence allows a plaintiff to recover damages even if they are partially at fault, but the plaintiff’s recovery is reduced in proportion to their percentage of fault.
Types of Comparative Negligence:
a. Pure Comparative Negligence
Plaintiff recovers damages minus their percentage of fault.
Even if plaintiff is 99% at fault, they can still recover 1% of damages.
b. Modified Comparative Negligence
Plaintiff can recover only if their fault is below a certain threshold (usually 50% or 51%).
If plaintiff’s fault exceeds this threshold, they recover nothing.
Case Law Example:
Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975)
California adopted pure comparative negligence, allowing plaintiff’s recovery reduced by their percentage of fault.
McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992)
Tennessee adopted modified comparative negligence with a 50% bar rule.
3. Key Differences
| Feature | Contributory Negligence | Comparative Negligence |
|---|---|---|
| Effect on plaintiff’s recovery | Any fault bars all recovery | Recovery reduced by plaintiff’s fault |
| Application | Only in a few states | Majority of states |
| Severity | Very harsh, all-or-nothing | More fair and proportionate |
| Example states | Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina (mostly) | California, Florida, New York (modified or pure) |
4. Case Examples Showing Application
Contributory Negligence Bar
Gentry v. Douglas Tank Lines, Inc., 345 S.E.2d 343 (Va. 1986)
The plaintiff’s slight negligence barred recovery despite the defendant’s greater fault.
Modified Comparative Negligence Example
Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal.4th 296 (1992)
Plaintiff’s recovery was reduced because of her own negligence in a sports injury case.
5. How Fault is Determined
Courts or juries assign percentage of fault to each party.
Factors include actions, failure to act, reasonableness of conduct, and foreseeability.
The plaintiff’s damages award is then adjusted based on their percentage of fault.
6. Practical Implications for Personal Injury Cases
Understanding which doctrine applies is crucial for litigation strategy.
In contributory negligence states, even minimal plaintiff fault can end the case.
In comparative negligence states, plaintiffs must focus on minimizing their share of fault to maximize recovery.
Defense attorneys often argue plaintiff’s fault to reduce damages.
Plaintiffs should be aware that their own conduct will be scrutinized.
Summary Table
| Aspect | Contributory Negligence | Comparative Negligence |
|---|---|---|
| Recovery when plaintiff is at fault | None if any fault | Reduced by plaintiff’s fault |
| Jurisdictions | Few states (e.g., Alabama, Maryland) | Majority of states (e.g., CA, NY, FL) |
| Threshold for recovery | 0% fault tolerated | Threshold varies (pure vs. modified) |
| Fairness | Often criticized as harsh | Considered more equitable |
RELATED Blog
0 comments