Comparative and contributory negligence are two legal principles that govern how fault is defined in personal injury cases. Comparative negligence assigns blame to each party proportionately depending on their share of fault. In contrast, contributory negligence is a doctrine of law that bars victims from receiving compensation if they are found to have contributed to any fault.
Understanding the distinction between comparative and contributory negligence is essential for anyone working on a personal injury lawsuit since it significantly impacts the case's outcome and the amount of compensation awarded. This blog details these two legal theories and how they apply to personal injury cases.
What is Negligence?
According to California law, negligence can be defined as not exercising a duty of care towards others that a prudent or reasonable individual would use in similar circumstances or acting in ways that such a sensible individual would not, resulting in damage or harm to another individual.
Many personal injury cases are based on the core tort law notion of negligence. To properly seek damages, an injured party must show that the defendant's negligence was the leading cause of their injuries.
An Overview of Contributory Negligence
Contributory negligence is based on a stringent and older principle. If it is determined that you were even slightly negligent in contributing to your accident, you cannot receive compensation for any damages. Because of the often severe consequences, only a few states follow this rule.
In the past, personal injury claims were handled using the contributory fault rule. In 1975, the California Supreme Court ruled it was unjust and replaced it with the comparative negligence law.
The Contributory Negligence Rule
When a contributory negligence rule is applied, an accused person can avoid liability for claims if the victim bears some liability for the damages caused. If an accused person is 99% at fault for injuring the victim, the complainant cannot win their personal injury case if they are 1% responsible.
This means if the victim is found to be responsible in any way, they receive no compensation. For example, if a drunk motorist hit an individual crossing in the middle of a roadway rather than at the crosswalk, that individual was not exercising reasonable caution.
Although the motorist was intoxicated, failed to act reasonably when drunk driving, was negligent when driving, and caused injury, the pedestrian was equally negligent in crossing outside of a crosswalk and bears the blame. If the jurisdiction applies the contributory negligence law, the defendant could use it as a defense.
How Contributory Negligence Works
A few states in the United States still apply the comparative fault rule. These states are North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Alabama, and Washington, D.C.. In personal injury cases, the victims should demonstrate that the accused did not act reasonably, caused harm, and should be held financially liable for the damages.
When complainants successfully demonstrate a defendant's negligence, it does not mean that they will receive compensation. Defendants can present defenses to refuse liability for the accident. In some jurisdictions, contributory negligence is one of these defenses.
Under the doctrine of contributory negligence, even if an accused is at least partly at fault for a crash, they cannot be held liable because the victim was also somewhat to blame. Suppose the victim did not turn on their signal while taking a right turn at an intersection and was hit by the accused, who was driving recklessly. In this case, both parties will be partially accountable for the incident due to their irresponsible actions.
This argument makes it hard for victims to seek compensation for damages. As a result, most states currently follow comparative negligence rules instead of contributory negligence.
An Overview of Comparative Negligence
Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine that limits a victim's compensation based on their level of fault while also accounting for the accused's negligence. It is also referred to as comparative fault. The rule implies that a victim could still be eligible for compensation, although at a lesser amount, even if it is determined that they were partially to blame for the crash. Some states with comparative negligence rules could have different regulations on allocating damages.
Comparative negligence rule can be divided into pure and modified comparative negligence. In the following section, we will discuss these two categories and their effects on personal injury claims in greater depth.
-
Pure Comparative Negligence Doctrine
Pure comparative negligence legislation allows both drivers involved in a crash to seek compensation for their injuries. It permits this, irrespective of one's share of the blame. This means you can file a lawsuit even if you are determined to be 99% at fault for the collision. However, this rule reduces the amount you receive based on your share of blame.
For example, your settlement sum can be reduced by 96% if you bear 96% of the blame. Everyone remains accountable for their share of liability and has the option of filing a personal injury claim with the other party's insurer for the part of the damage they are not liable for.
-
Modified Comparative Negligence
On the other hand, modified comparative negligence is a form of comparative negligence in which the victim's portion of the fault is limited to less than fifty percent, meaning their compensation will be reduced accordingly. According to this legal theory, an individual can obtain compensation for a crash if their fault share is less than the predetermined threshold, usually between 50% and 51%.
An individual might not be eligible for damages if their fault level exceeds the threshold. This method allows for a more equitable distribution of compensation by considering each party's share of fault for the accident and striking a balance between pure comparative and contributory negligence extremes.
Elements of Comparative Negligence
If an injured party files a personal injury case, the accused can raise a comparative negligence defense as a partial response to liability. The following elements could be necessary for the defendant to establish comparative negligence:
- The victim had a duty to take measures to avoid harm.
- The plaintiff did not take the measures that a reasonably sensible person could have taken in the given situation.
- The negligent act on the victim's part was partially or entirely responsible for the harm suffered that led to the case.
At Fault Parties in a Personal Injury Case
Victims of personal injury cases typically seek financial compensation from a particular defendant. The general principle in such cases is that a victim can recover all their losses if the defendant is entirely at fault for the injuries sustained from the collision. Most victims want to know if their actions are partially to blame for the crash.
The comparative negligence rule in California assigns fault among those involved. As the injured victim, your damages can be reduced depending on the extent of your fault when the incident occurred. If the defendant claims you are partially at fault, the jury will determine your share of responsibility for the collision. This portion will reduce the overall damages awarded.
Types Of Damages In Comparative and Contributory Negligence Rules
Comparative and contributory negligence principles apply in personal injury claims seeking non-monetary and financial damages. Unlike non-financial damages, which are intangible, monetary damages are recognized as tangible.
If these principles apply to you as an injured party, you may be entitled to economic compensation such as healthcare expenses, lost revenue or income, and property loss. If injured, a forensic accountant can assess the financial losses by comparing your record to industry guidelines.
Non-monetary damages compensate for extreme pain, emotional discomfort, and physical suffering because they are intangible. Others include the inability to enjoy life, damage to reputation, the resulting injury, and disfigurement. They often consist of the immeasurable losses you suffered due to a personal accident.
Which Law Applies When Two Individuals File Personal Injury Cases Against One Other?
In most personal injury cases, one party sustains injuries, whereas the other is responsible for the accident. However, both parties involved in a crash could be held accountable and sustain injuries. If you are the injured party in this situation, the defendant will likely submit a counterclaim if you press charges against them.
Jurors will determine liability and damages separately if they believe that both parties bear some responsibility. Once the court decides who is responsible for the accident, each party will be eligible for compensation. Ultimately, each side will receive separate settlements or have their damages tailored against one another.
Is Pure Comparative Negligence Applicable in Both Parties?
Just as in any case involving a single respondent, comparative damages are granted in cases where both parties are held liable for causing injury. The court can assign fault to all parties involved, including the plaintiff and several respondents. Each party's respective share of blame will determine the portion of compensation that they are each entitled to.
Defenses Against Negligence Charges
In personal injury cases, both parties must appear before a judge and give their account of events. You can anticipate the respondent's lawyer to raise several defenses as you attempt to hold them liable for causing your injury. The following are some of the possible legal arguments for negligence charges in personal injury claims:
The Defendant Did Not Owe The Victim Any Duty Of Care
Given that exercising care is vital in establishing negligence, respondents usually contest any obligations attributed to them. Drivers, property owners, business owners, and manufacturers have a legal responsibility to ensure the safety of others.
If they violate this obligation, they might be deemed negligent. A respondent could dispute liability for your losses by rejecting the duty of care allegations.
You Accepted The Risks Of Being Injured
Defendants may only assert that the plaintiff accepted the risks of injury when they participated in activities with a certain level of risk, like hiking or training at a gym.
Many manufacturers or property owners require you to sign a release of liability and assumption of risk contract. Once you consent to these contracts, you accept responsibility for any harm you cause while using their goods or facilities.
Although assuming the risks of injury are acceptable, there is still a responsibility of care that should be fulfilled. Companies producing items or facilities are responsible for taking reasonable safety measures to reduce the likelihood of injury. To counter this argument, your attorney can look for a loophole in your signed release agreement.
You Were Liable For The Injuries You Suffered
Even if you present evidence and facts in your lawsuit, the defendant can still hold you liable for the accident or injury. Your lawyer can counter this claim by presenting facts and evidence that render the respondent liable for your losses. Additionally, you may be eligible for partial damages under the comparative fault statute if you share some guilt for the accident or injury.
In Which Personal Injury Claims Do The Standards Of Comparative and Contributory Negligence Apply?
Comparative and contributory negligence standards can be used independently in different personal injury lawsuits despite their differences. The cases cover product liability, premises liability, and auto accident lawsuits. Here is how they relate to various cases.
Cases Involving Product Liability
Product liability lawsuits aim to hold creators, retailers, and manufacturers accountable for any harm the product may cause. The individual or business does not need to have acted negligently to be held strictly culpable for injuries.
Several product flaws can subject a company to strict liability under California law. These include design flaws, manufacturing defects, and poor working problems. Although you have the right to sue for product liability, you may also be held responsible for any harm caused by a defective product.
The amount of damages awarded to you by the court will be based on your share of fault for the injury.
Cases of Premises Liability
When an injury or accident happens on a facility or property with harmful or risky conditions, a tenant could sue the property owner under the premises liability claim. Premises accidents can occur at a theme park, a restaurant, or the office.
Property owners are responsible for properly maintaining and inspecting these properties. They should also resolve any unsafe conditions and notify the residents of any risks they may find.
Contributory and comparative negligence principles can be used in premises liability claims. In a case where you are partly to blame, a California court can reduce your damages depending on your percentage of fault. Nevertheless, you cannot sue for damages when the crash occurs in a jurisdiction that recognizes contributory negligence.
Auto Accident Lawsuits
Auto accidents can take many forms, but some common ones involve trucks, head-on accidents, ridesharing accidents, accidents involving buses, and intoxicated drivers.
While car crashes leave individuals injured or in danger of serious injury, damages are granted when the fault has been established. As a pedestrian or driver who has been hurt, you can sue the authorities, the car manufacturer, the construction team, or the at-fault driver.
Different parties in a car collision frequently accuse each other of having caused the crash. You, the plaintiff, could also hold non-driving respondents accountable. If you are at fault, contributory negligence principles would prevent you from collecting your damages. However, if you are found to be at blame for the damages, the principle of comparative negligence will enable you to collect a share of the compensation.
What Is The Difference Between Comparative Negligence And Contributory Negligence?
Contributory and comparative negligence differ primarily in treating plaintiffs partially responsible for their accident-related injuries. Under the contributory negligence doctrine, plaintiffs are prohibited from seeking compensation if they are deemed to have any degree of fault. On the other hand, the comparative negligence doctrine allows plaintiffs to seek damages even if they are partially to blame.
What Will Happen If I Caused the Accident?
The comparative negligence principle has two variations:
- Modified comparative negligence.
- Pure comparative negligence.
California applies the pure comparative negligence law, whereas other states employ the modified comparative negligence law.
Plaintiffs can obtain a part of the damages allocated to the defendants under the pure comparative negligence law. Here, your compensation will be decreased according to your percentage of fault when you are mainly responsible for causing the accident.
However, the modified negligence law has two parts:
- The 50% rule.
- The 51% principle.
If a complainant's proportion of fault is 51% or above, states that adhere to the 51% rule prevent them from receiving damages.
As a result, if the injured party bears more than fifty percent of the blame for an accident, jurisdictions that adhere to the 50% rule prohibit them from pursuing damages.
Find a Personal Injury Lawyer Near Me
Comparative negligence laws provide a remedy to accident victims who were denied compensation under contributory negligence laws. The LA Personal Injury Law Firm, located in Los Angeles, CA, can help settle damage claims based on fault determination. You can improve your chances of a successful outcome by providing evidence that a certain respondent caused an injury or accident. Contact our personal injury lawyers at 310-935-0089 for a consultation or case evaluation.
