Comparative Negligence

Definition

Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine that apportions liability between parties based on their relative degree of fault in an accident or injury. It allows for the recovery of damages even if the plaintiff was partially responsible for the harm, with the damages reduced in proportion to the plaintiff's share of the blame.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Comparative negligence is used to determine the appropriate allocation of liability between the plaintiff and defendant(s) in a tort case.
2. The plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, but they can still recover damages as long as their negligence is less than the defendant's.
3. Comparative negligence encourages plaintiffs to act reasonably and take precautions to avoid harm, while also holding defendants accountable for their negligent actions.
4. The application of comparative negligence varies by jurisdiction, with some states using a 'pure' form and others using a 'modified' form with a 50% or 51% threshold.
5. Comparative negligence can be a complex concept to apply, as it requires a detailed analysis of the specific facts and circumstances of the case.

Review Questions

• Explain how the doctrine of comparative negligence differs from the traditional contributory negligence rule in tort law.
  • The key difference between comparative negligence and contributory negligence is that comparative negligence allows a plaintiff to recover damages even if they were partially at fault, with the award reduced in proportion to their share of the blame. Contributory negligence, on the other hand, completely bars a plaintiff from recovering any damages if they were found to be even slightly negligent, regardless of the defendant's degree of fault. Comparative negligence is seen as a more equitable approach, as it recognizes that both parties may have contributed to the harm and apportions liability accordingly.
• Describe how the concept of comparative negligence applies in the context of intentional torts and negligence.
  • In the context of intentional torts, comparative negligence is generally not applicable, as the focus is on the defendant's intentional and wrongful conduct rather than the plaintiff's negligence. However, in negligence cases, comparative negligence plays a crucial role in determining the appropriate allocation of liability. If both the plaintiff and defendant were negligent, the court will assess the relative degree of fault and reduce the plaintiff's recovery by their percentage of responsibility. This encourages plaintiffs to take reasonable precautions to avoid harm, while still allowing them to recover damages if the defendant's negligence was the primary cause of the injury.
• Analyze how the application of comparative negligence principles may impact the determination of liability in product liability and strict liability cases.
  • In product liability and strict liability cases, the focus is on the defective nature of the product and the manufacturer's responsibility, rather than the plaintiff's actions. However, the doctrine of comparative negligence can still come into play. If the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the harm, the court may reduce the damages awarded to the plaintiff based on their share of the blame. For example, if a plaintiff was using a product in an unreasonable or unintended manner, their comparative negligence could limit the recovery, even though the manufacturer may be strictly liable for the product defect. This encourages plaintiffs to use products responsibly and take reasonable precautions, while still holding manufacturers accountable for the safety of their products.

Related terms

Contributory Negligence: A traditional legal doctrine that bars a plaintiff from recovering any damages if they are found to be even slightly negligent, regardless of the defendant's degree of fault.

Assumption of Risk: A defense that can reduce or eliminate a defendant's liability if the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly exposed themselves to a risk of harm.

Joint and Several Liability: A principle that allows a plaintiff to recover the full amount of damages from any defendant who is found liable, even if that defendant is only partially responsible.