Legal Definitions - comparative negligence

Comparative negligence is a legal principle used in personal injury cases to determine how much compensation an injured person (the plaintiff) can receive when their own carelessness (negligence) contributed to their injury.

Instead of completely barring recovery if the injured person was partly at fault, comparative negligence allows courts to reduce the amount of damages awarded based on the percentage of fault assigned to each party involved in an incident. This means that if you are found to be partially responsible for your own injury, the compensation you receive will be proportionally lowered.

There are two main types of comparative negligence:

• Pure Comparative Negligence: Under this rule, an injured person can recover damages even if they were mostly at fault for the incident. Their compensation is simply reduced by their percentage of fault. For example, if a person is found to be 90% at fault, they can still recover 10% of their total damages from the other party.

• Modified Comparative Negligence: This rule places a limit on how much fault an injured person can bear and still recover damages. There are two common variations:

  • 50% Bar Rule: If the injured person is found to be 50% or more at fault, they cannot recover any damages.

  • 51% Bar Rule: If the injured person is found to be 51% or more at fault, they cannot recover any damages. If they are 50% or less at fault, they can recover reduced damages.

Here are some examples to illustrate how comparative negligence works:

• Example 1: Car Accident at an Intersection

  Imagine a driver, Sarah, is speeding slightly through an intersection. At the same time, another driver, Mark, makes a left turn without properly checking for oncoming traffic. They collide, and Mark sustains injuries. During the lawsuit, a jury determines that Sarah's speeding contributed 40% to the accident, while Mark's failure to yield contributed 60%. If Mark's total damages are assessed at $100,000, under comparative negligence, his recovery would be reduced by his 60% fault. Therefore, Mark would only be able to recover $40,000 from Sarah.

• Example 2: Slip and Fall in a Retail Store

  A customer, David, slips and falls on a spilled drink in a supermarket aisle, breaking his arm. The store employees had been notified of the spill but had not yet cleaned it up or placed a warning sign. However, security footage shows David was distracted, looking at his phone, and not watching where he was walking. A court might find the supermarket 75% responsible for not addressing the hazard promptly and David 25% responsible for his inattention. If David's medical bills and lost wages total $20,000, he would recover $15,000 (75% of $20,000) from the supermarket.

• Example 3: Recreational Activity Injury and Varying Rules

  Consider a person, Emily, who is injured while riding an electric scooter. The scooter's brakes malfunctioned due to a manufacturing defect (the manufacturer's fault). However, Emily was also riding the scooter on a pedestrian sidewalk, which was prohibited by local ordinance and contributed to the severity of her fall. A jury finds the scooter manufacturer 45% at fault and Emily 55% at fault for riding on the sidewalk. If Emily's damages are $50,000:

  • In a state following pure comparative negligence, Emily could still recover $22,500 (45% of $50,000) despite being more than 50% at fault.

  • In a state following the 50% bar rule for modified comparative negligence, Emily would recover nothing because her fault (55%) is equal to or greater than the 50% threshold.

  • In a state following the 51% bar rule for modified comparative negligence, Emily would also recover nothing because her fault (55%) is equal to or greater than the 51% threshold.