Legal Definitions - modified-comparative-negligence doctrine

The modified-comparative-negligence doctrine is a legal principle applied in personal injury lawsuits to determine how financial compensation (damages) is awarded when both the injured party (the plaintiff) and the party being sued (the defendant) are found to share some responsibility for the incident. Under this doctrine, an injured party can only recover damages if their own fault is determined to be *less than* a specific percentage, which is typically either 50% or 51%, depending on the laws of the particular state. If the injured party's fault meets or exceeds this threshold, they are completely prevented from recovering any compensation. However, if their fault is below the threshold, their total awarded damages are reduced proportionally by their percentage of fault.

• Example 1: Car Accident with Shared Fault (50% Bar State)

  Imagine a scenario where Driver A is making a left turn at an intersection without signaling, and Driver B, who is slightly speeding, collides with Driver A's car. A jury determines that Driver A is 40% at fault for failing to signal, and Driver B is 60% at fault for speeding. Driver A suffers $100,000 in damages. In a state that uses the 50% modified-comparative-negligence rule, since Driver A's fault (40%) is less than 50%, they are eligible to recover damages. However, their award will be reduced by their percentage of fault. Therefore, Driver A would recover $60,000 ($100,000 minus 40%).

• Example 2: Slip and Fall in a Retail Store (51% Bar State)

  Consider a shopper, Ms. Rodriguez, who is walking through a department store while texting on her phone. She slips on a wet floor near a display that had been leaking for an hour, which store employees had not yet addressed. A jury finds Ms. Rodriguez 45% at fault for being distracted by her phone and the department store 55% at fault for failing to maintain a safe environment. Ms. Rodriguez's medical bills and lost wages total $20,000. In a state that applies the 51% modified-comparative-negligence rule, Ms. Rodriguez's 45% fault is less than 51%, so she can recover. Her damages would be reduced by 45%, meaning she would receive $11,000 ($20,000 minus 45%).

• Example 3: Construction Site Injury (Plaintiff Exceeds Threshold in 50% Bar State)

  A construction worker, Mr. Lee, is injured when he falls from a scaffold. An investigation reveals that Mr. Lee failed to properly secure his safety harness, a violation of company policy. It is also found that the construction company failed to conduct a mandatory daily inspection of the scaffold, which would have revealed a loose plank. A jury determines Mr. Lee is 50% at fault for not securing his harness, and the construction company is 50% at fault for the inadequate inspection. Mr. Lee's injuries amount to $150,000. In a state with a 50% modified-comparative-negligence rule, because Mr. Lee's fault (50%) is *not less than* 50% (it is equal to 50%), he would be completely barred from recovering any damages from the construction company.