Legal Definitions - comparative-negligence doctrine

The comparative-negligence doctrine is a legal principle applied in personal injury cases to determine how much compensation an injured person (the plaintiff) can receive when they were also partly responsible for causing their own injury or damages. Instead of completely preventing someone from recovering money if they were partly at fault, this doctrine reduces the amount of money they can receive in proportion to their own degree of fault. Most states in the U.S. follow some form of comparative negligence.

Here are some examples illustrating how the comparative-negligence doctrine works:

• Scenario: Car Accident
  A driver, Sarah, is speeding slightly above the limit on a highway. Another driver, Mark, attempts to change lanes without signaling and cuts Sarah off, causing a collision. Sarah sues Mark for her medical expenses and vehicle damage, totaling $50,000. A jury determines that Mark was primarily at fault for the unsafe lane change (80% fault), but Sarah's speeding also contributed to the accident (20% fault).

  How it applies: Under the comparative-negligence doctrine, Sarah's recovery would be reduced by her 20% share of fault. Instead of receiving the full $50,000, she would be awarded $40,000 ($50,000 - 20%).

• Scenario: Slip and Fall in a Store
  A customer, David, slips and falls on a wet floor in a supermarket, sustaining a knee injury. The store had a "Wet Floor" sign displayed, but it was partially obscured by a display rack. David admits he was looking at his phone while walking and didn't notice the sign or the wet patch. David sues the supermarket for $25,000 in medical bills and lost wages.

  How it applies: A court might find the supermarket 60% responsible for failing to adequately warn customers about the hazard, and David 40% responsible for not paying attention to his surroundings. Due to comparative negligence, David's $25,000 claim would be reduced by 40%, meaning he would recover $15,000.

• Scenario: Workplace Injury
  A factory worker, Emily, suffers a hand injury while operating a machine that had a known defect, which the company had failed to repair despite repeated complaints. However, Emily was also not wearing the mandatory safety gloves provided by the company at the time of the incident, which might have lessened the severity of the injury. Emily sues her employer for $100,000 in damages.

  How it applies: A jury could determine that the company's negligence in maintaining the machine was 70% responsible for the injury, but Emily's failure to wear safety gloves contributed 30% to the extent of her damages. Applying the comparative-negligence doctrine, Emily would receive $70,000 ($100,000 - 30%).