Comparative Negligence vs Contributory Negligence Explained
Negligence laws vary across states, with most following comparative negligence laws, while a handful (Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, and Washington D.C.) follow contributory negligence laws.
Comparative negligence systems in contrast, typically give victims more of an opportunity to secure damages. There are two types of comparative negligence systems: modified and pure.
Pure Comparative Negligence (California)
In pure comparative negligence states, such as California, victims can pursue damages, even if they hold 99% of the blame for the accident.
However, defendants can still fight against the claim by trying to assign fault to the victim for their part in the accident.
Under both modified comparative negligence and pure comparative negligence systems, a victim’s compensation is reduced by the percentage of fault they bear for the incident.
If a plaintiff is assigned 30% of the blame, they receive 70% (30% less) than the total calculated settlement or verdict amount.
What is Contributory Negligence?
Contributory negligence is a legal doctrine used to determine the extent of personal injury damages that can be awarded to a plaintiff based on their contribution to the incident or harm.
Contributory negligence systems can make it more difficult for victims to secure compensation in a personal injury claim.
Why?
The doctrine of contributory negligence holds that if an injured party is found to be partly at fault for the events leading to their injuries, they may be barred from recovering any damages from the other party, who may also be at fault.
Under strict contributory negligence laws, victims may be barred from seeking damages if they hold any fault for the accident leading to their injuries.
When victims in a contributory negligence state file an injury claim against a party they say caused their injuries, the accused can wage a defense using contributory negligence. The defendant can state the victim did not take reasonable care to avoid harm.
Let’s look at some examples.
Imagine a defendant’s reckless driving directly caused a car accident. The victim, also driving at the time of the incident, was not wearing a seatbelt. The defendant could claim the victim contributed to their own injuries by not wearing a seatbelt.
Another example would be if a motorcyclist is driving too fast for road conditions and hits a pedestrian.
If the victim did not look both ways before crossing the street or did not properly gauge the motorcyclist’s speed, the motorcyclist could claim the victim’s “negligence” contributed to the ensuing crash and injuries.
The Doctrine of “Last Clear Chance”
Some contributory negligence states have adopted the doctrine of “last clear chance.” This doctrine allows victims who are partially at fault for an accident an opportunity to collect compensation.
Here’s what that means.
Essentially, the doctrine states that if the defendant had the last opportunity to use reasonable care to avoid the accident and did not use that opportunity, the victim could pursue damages.
To benefit from this doctrine, victims must show that:
- Despite their “negligence” in putting themselves in danger, they could not avoid the danger created by the defendant’s negligence.
- The defendant knew of the dangerous situation and could have avoided causing the victim harm by exercising ordinary care.
- The defendant failed to take this ordinary care and is, therefore, the cause of the victim’s injuries.
The Burden of Proof
When victims file a personal injury claim, the burden of proof is on them to prove negligence. If their state follows contributory negligence and the defendant fights against the injury claim, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove the victim’s contributory negligence.
Should the victim fight to hold the defendant accountable under the doctrine of last clear chance, the burden falls back on the victim to prove the defendant had the last opportunity to avoid the accident, but failed to use it.
Our skilled and experienced personal injury lawyers the intricacies of California’s comparative negligence rules. We know your rights as a victim and will put all our resources and experience into defending you against inflated blame and proving the at-fault party bears responsibility for your injuries and their consequences.
Do not let at-fault parties or their representatives intimidate or take advantage of you. Partnering with a California personal injury attorney puts you in the best position to secure the compensation you need and deserve for your damages. The team at Curtis Legal Group has convenient offices in Sacramento, Modesto, Fresno and Stockton, California. Reach out to an attentive but fierce California personal injury lawyer from Curtis Legal Group today.