13:13
I saw that, and I saw you got the Georgetown interview invite yesterday too! Goodluck!
Warning
Info
LSDefine
Simple English definitions for legal terms
comparative negligence
Read a random definition: black cap
A quick definition of comparative negligence:
Comparative negligence is a legal principle that determines how much money someone can get if they were hurt because of someone else's mistake. If the person who was hurt was also partly responsible for what happened, the court will decide how much of the blame goes to each person. Then, the amount of money the hurt person can get will be reduced based on how much they were at fault. There are two types of comparative negligence: pure and modified. Pure means the hurt person can still get some money even if they were mostly at fault, while modified means they can only get money if they were less than 50% or 51% at fault, depending on the state. Contributory negligence is another legal principle that says if the hurt person was even a little bit at fault, they can't get any money. Only a few states follow this rule.
A more thorough explanation:
Comparative negligence is a legal principle that reduces the amount of damages a plaintiff can recover in a negligence-based claim based on the degree of negligence each party contributed to the incident. This means that if the plaintiff was partially at fault for the incident, the court may assign a percentage of fault to both the plaintiff and the defendant. The damages awarded to the plaintiff will then be reduced based on the percentage of fault assigned to them.
There are two types of comparative negligence in the United States:
- Pure Comparative Negligence: Under this rule, the plaintiff can claim damages for the percentage of fault that is assigned to the defendant, even if the plaintiff is found to be mostly at fault. For example, if the plaintiff is found to be 90% at fault and the defendant is found to be 10% at fault, the plaintiff can still recover 10% of the damages.
- Modified Comparative Negligence: Under this rule, the plaintiff cannot recover damages if they are found to be more than a certain percentage at fault. There are two types of modified comparative negligence:
- 50% Bar Rule: The plaintiff cannot recover damages if they are found to be 50% or more at fault.
- 51% Bar Rule: The plaintiff cannot recover damages if they are found to be 51% or more at fault.
The majority of states follow the modified comparative negligence rule.
Comparative negligence is different from contributory negligence, which is a legal principle that prevents the plaintiff from recovering any damages if they contributed in any way to the incident. Only four states and the District of Columbia recognize the contributory negligence rule.
Suppose that a driver is speeding and runs a red light, causing a collision with another car. The driver of the other car is found to be partially at fault because they were distracted by their phone and did not see the speeding car. The court assigns 60% fault to the speeding driver and 40% fault to the other driver. If the total damages are $10,000, the other driver can only recover 60% of the damages, or $6,000.
This example illustrates how comparative negligence works. The damages awarded to the other driver are reduced based on the percentage of fault assigned to them. In this case, the other driver was found to be 40% at fault, so their damages are reduced by 40%.