Comparative Negligence Example: Car Accident Lawsuit
As experienced divorce lawyers at LawOfficeOfBrianKelly, we understand that legal concepts can sometimes be confusing. Comparative negligence is one such topic that often perplexes many. Imagine a car accident where both drivers share some blame; this is where comparative negligence comes into play.
Our goal with this article is to explain comparative negligence using clear, real-life examples that make it easy to grasp.
From the point of view of law, comparative negligence means both parties share fault in an accident. For example, if one driver ran a red light and the other was speeding, both might be partly to blame. Each party’s damages are reduced by their percentage of fault.
What is Comparative Negligence?
Comparative negligence allows courts to apportion damages based on each party’s degree of fault in a personal injury case.
When an accident happens, each person involved is given a percentage of the blame based on how much they caused it.
In simple terms, if you were partly at fault for an accident, the money you get for damages will be reduced by the amount of fault you had. For instance, if you were 20% to blame and the damages were $100,000, you would get $80,000.
There are two main types of this system: pure comparative negligence and modified comparative negligence. In basic terms, with pure comparative negligence, you can still get money even if you are 99% to blame. In modified comparative negligence, you can’t get any money if you are equally or more to blame than the other person.
Most states in the U.S. use comparative negligence to make sure everyone involved in an accident is held responsible for their part. This method helps fairly decide who pays for what in personal injury cases where more than one person is at fault.
Types of Comparative Negligence Systems
Some comparative negligence systems bar recovery if the plaintiff is found to be 50% or more at fault, while others allow recovery even if the plaintiff is primarily responsible.
To simplify in personal injury cases, different systems are used to figure out who is at fault and how much compensation each party gets.
Pure Comparative Negligence: Everyone involved gets a percentage of the blame and their compensation is reduced by that percentage. For example, if you’re 30% at fault, your compensation is cut by 30%.
Modified Comparative Negligence: To get compensation, you must be less at fault than a certain percentage:
- 50% Rule: You must be less than 50% at fault to get any compensation.
- 51% Rule: You must be less than 51% at fault to get any compensation.
The exact rules depend on where you are. Knowing these rules is very important for handling legal cases effectively because they decide how blame and compensation are divided.
Examples of Comparative Negligence Cases
In comparative negligence cases, both parties share the blame and financial responsibility for an accident or injury.
In concise terms, if a person crossing the street without using a crosswalk is hit by a car, both the person walking and the driver might share the blame for the accident. Another example is if a construction worker gets hurt because of broken equipment and because they didn’t follow safety rules, both the worker and their boss could be responsible.
Essentially put, in a similar way, if a patient doesn’t tell their doctor important medical history and the doctor makes a mistake, both the patient and the doctor might be at fault.
These examples show how sharing blame, or comparative negligence, works. It means that when more than one person is responsible for an accident or injury, the blame is divided based on how much each person is at fault. This helps the court decide how much money the injured person should get from each party involved.
Comparative Negligence vs. Contributory Negligence
Comparative negligence allows for partial recovery based on the degree of fault, while contributory negligence can bar recovery completely if the plaintiff is even slightly at fault.
Contributory negligence is an old legal rule that says if a person partly caused their own injury, they can’t get any money for it. This means even if they were just 1% to blame, they get nothing.
Comparative negligence is a newer and fairer rule. It lets people get some money even if they were partly at fault. The amount they get is reduced by how much they were to blame.
To cut a long story short, with pure comparative negligence, you can get money no matter how much you were at fault. But in modified comparative negligence states, you can only get money if you were less than half to blame, depending on the state’s rules.
How Comparative Negligence Affects Compensation
In cases of comparative negligence, compensation is adjusted based on each party’s assigned percentage of fault, meaning that a party found 30% at fault would receive 70% of the total damages.
If someone is partly to blame for an accident, their compensation might be cut based on how much at fault they are. For instance, if they are 20% at fault, their compensation would be reduced by 20%. So, they’d get less money than if they were not at fault at all.
In some states with a pure comparative negligence rule, a person can still get compensation even if they are mostly to blame for the accident. Essentially put, their payout will be smaller depending on their share of the blame.
However, in states with a modified comparative negligence rule, a person might not get any compensation if they are equally or more at fault than the other person involved.
In short, how much blame a person has in an accident affects how much money they can receive as compensation.
The Closing Remarks
In cases of comparative negligence, liability is determined based on the percentage of fault assigned to each party involved. What LawOfficeOfBrianKelly is recommending to set up is, for example, if a pedestrian is hit by a car while crossing the street, but was also jaywalking at the time, both the pedestrian and the driver may be found partially at fault. This system allows for a fair and nuanced approach to personal injury cases.
