What Is Comparative Negligence, and How Does It Work in Court?

Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine used in personal injury cases where both the plaintiff and the defendant may be partially at fault for an accident or injury. Unlike contributory negligence, which can bar the plaintiff from recovering damages if they are found to be even slightly at fault, comparative negligence allows the court to determine each party’s degree of fault and adjust the damages accordingly. Under this system, a plaintiff can still recover damages even if they are partially responsible for the incident, but the amount of compensation they receive is reduced in proportion to their level of fault.

There are two main types of comparative negligence: pure comparative negligence and modified comparative negligence.

How Comparative Negligence Works in Court

In a comparative negligence case, the court will assess and allocate fault between the parties involved based on their respective actions that contributed to the injury. The court will consider factors such as:

• How each party behaved during the incident.
• The extent to which each party’s actions caused or contributed to the accident.
• Whether the plaintiff’s own negligence played a role in causing their injury.

The amount of damages the plaintiff can recover is then reduced by their percentage of fault in the incident. Here’s how it works:

• Determining Fault: The court or jury will determine the degree of fault for each party involved in the accident. For example, if the plaintiff was 30% responsible for the accident and the defendant was 70% responsible, the court will assign percentages of fault.
• Apportioning Damages: Once fault is allocated, the plaintiff’s total damages (e.g., medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering) are reduced in proportion to their percentage of fault. For example, if the plaintiff's damages are $100,000 and they are found to be 30% at fault, they can recover $70,000 (100% - 30%).

Types of Comparative Negligence

Pure Comparative Negligence

In a pure comparative negligence system, the plaintiff can recover damages even if they are 99% at fault. Their recovery will simply be reduced according to their percentage of fault.

Example: If the plaintiff is 90% at fault for a car accident, and their total damages are $50,000, they would still be able to recover 10% of the damages, or $5,000.

Modified Comparative Negligence

In modified comparative negligence, the plaintiff can only recover damages if their degree of fault is below a certain threshold, usually 50% or 51%. If the plaintiff is found to be 50% or more at fault, they are barred from recovering any damages.

Example: If the plaintiff is found to be 51% or more at fault for the accident, they will not be entitled to any compensation, regardless of the defendant’s share of the fault. However, if they are found to be 49% or less at fault, they can recover damages, reduced by their percentage of fault.

50% Bar Rule: In some jurisdictions, the threshold is set at 50%. If the plaintiff’s fault is 50% or higher, they cannot recover any damages, but if they are 49% at fault or less, they can still recover, with their damages reduced by the percentage of their fault.

Examples

Pure Comparative Negligence

A pedestrian is crossing the street when a car runs a red light and hits them. The court finds the pedestrian 30% at fault for not using the crosswalk. The pedestrian’s medical bills amount to $100,000. In a pure comparative negligence state, the pedestrian can still recover 70% of the damages, or $70,000, even though they were partially at fault.

Modified Comparative Negligence

In a slip-and-fall case, a customer falls on a wet floor in a store. The customer is 40% at fault because they were not paying attention to the floor, while the store is 60% at fault for not posting warning signs. If the total damages are $50,000, the customer can recover 60% of the damages, or $30,000, because their fault is less than 50%.

If the customer were 51% at fault for not watching where they were walking, they would be completely barred from recovering damages in a jurisdiction that applies the 50% bar rule.

Impact of Comparative Negligence

The system of comparative negligence changes how personal injury claims are evaluated and reduces the likelihood that a party will be completely barred from recovering damages due to their own negligence. Here’s the impact:

• Fairer Distribution of Liability: Comparative negligence allows for a more equitable division of responsibility and ensures that each party is held accountable for their actions in proportion to their fault.
• Partial Recovery: The plaintiff can still recover damages even if they are partially at fault, which means they are not completely penalized for their own role in the accident.
• Reduced Compensation: The plaintiff’s recovery is reduced in proportion to their fault, which can lead to a smaller award than if they were not at fault at all. This may affect how much compensation the injured party receives for medical bills, lost wages, and other damages.
• Encourages Settlement: In some cases, comparative negligence can encourage parties to settle disputes out of court, as the apportionment of fault is more straightforward than in contributory negligence jurisdictions, where even a small degree of fault can bar recovery.

Conclusion

Comparative negligence allows a plaintiff to recover damages even if they are partially at fault for an accident, with their recovery reduced based on their percentage of fault. This system promotes fairness by apportioning responsibility between both parties. The specific rules about how fault is determined and how damages are reduced vary depending on whether the jurisdiction follows pure comparative negligence or modified comparative negligence. Understanding how these systems work is essential for both plaintiffs and defendants in personal injury cases.