What is the difference between contributory and comparative negligence?
Contributory negligence and comparative negligence are two legal concepts that determine the degree of fault in a personal injury case. Both concepts are used to assess the responsibility of the parties involved in an accident, but they differ significantly in their approach and outcomes.
Contributory Negligence
Contributory negligence is a legal doctrine that bars a plaintiff from recovering damages if they are found to be even slightly at fault for the accident. This means that if a plaintiff is found to have contributed to the accident in any way, they will not be entitled to any compensation. The principle behind contributory negligence is that individuals should not be allowed to profit from their own negligence.
For example, if a pedestrian is crossing the street and jaywalks, and is subsequently hit by a car, the pedestrian may be considered contributorily negligent because they were not following the rules of the road. In this case, the pedestrian would not be able to recover any damages from the driver, even if the driver was also partially at fault.
Comparative Negligence
Comparative negligence, on the other hand, allows a plaintiff to recover damages even if they are partially at fault for the accident. Under this doctrine, the damages awarded to the plaintiff are reduced by the percentage of fault attributed to them. This means that if a plaintiff is found to be 20% at fault, their damages would be reduced by 20%.
Comparative negligence is more common in personal injury cases and is used in many jurisdictions across the United States. This approach is seen as fairer because it recognizes that accidents often involve multiple parties who may have contributed to the incident.
Key Differences
The main difference between contributory and comparative negligence lies in the outcome for the plaintiff. In contributory negligence cases, the plaintiff is completely barred from recovering damages, while in comparative negligence cases, the plaintiff can still recover damages, albeit reduced by their percentage of fault.
Another significant difference is the approach taken by each doctrine. Contributory negligence focuses on the principle of preventing individuals from profiting from their own negligence, while comparative negligence focuses on providing fair compensation to the injured party while still holding them partially responsible for their actions.
Conclusion
Understanding the difference between contributory and comparative negligence is crucial for individuals involved in personal injury cases. These legal concepts can have a significant impact on the outcome of a case and the amount of compensation awarded. While contributory negligence bars recovery for any degree of fault, comparative negligence allows for a fair allocation of responsibility and compensation.
