Contributory Negligence and Injury Cases (2024)

What is Contributory Negligence?

Contributory negligence and a variation called comparative negligence represent fairness. Contributory negligence is a defense against a negligence claim. It allows someone accused of injuring someone else to shift partial or total blame to the victim for their injuries.

This is fair and logical. If a motorcyclist fails to wear a helmet, they bear some of the blame for a head injury. However, the contributory negligence rule was harsh. It barred all compensation for the victim, even if they only bore 1% of the blame for their injuries.

For instance, suppose that you slipped and fell in a grocery store. Contributory negligence law might strip you of any right to recover compensation if you admit that you were looking at the shelves rather than the floor when you slipped. This minor distraction could keep you from recovering any compensation.

Comparative negligence represents a softening of the harshness of contributory negligence. A majority of states use comparative rather than contributory negligence, although the names are often used interchangeably.

In comparative negligence, the victim can still recover partial compensation if they played a role in causing their injuries. Under this doctrine, the fact finder divides the percentage of fault between all the parties involved.

For example, a medical malpractice lawyer might assert blame against the laboratory for mixing up the test results and the doctor for failing to recognize the mix-up. The insurer could blame the patient for waiting too long to tell the doctor their symptoms had not disappeared.

Comparative fault comes in two versions: pure and modified. Pure comparative fault allows the victim to recover compensation regardless of their share of the blame. However, the compensation they recover is reduced by the percentage allocated to them. Thus, a victim who’s 35% at fault can only recover 65% of their losses.

Modified comparative fault protects the other party if the victim was at least 50% at fault for their injuries. Depending on the version of modified comparative fault a state uses, the victim can only recover if they were less than either 49% or 50% at fault for their injuries.

Differences Between Contributory Negligence and Comparative Negligence

How these doctrines apply to personal injury claims depends on your location. The only jurisdictions to use traditional contributory negligence, barring all recovery for the victim’s negligence—no matter how slight—are as follows:

• Alabama

• Maryland

• North Carolina

• Virginia

• District of Columbia

South Dakota applies a softened version of this rule, allowing compensation if the victim’s role was only “slight.” The remaining jurisdictions use comparative negligence. There are several notable differences between these two doctrines.

Elements of Contributory Negligence and Comparative Negligence

Both comparative and contributory negligence require the insurance company or at-fault party to prove the victim acted negligently. This means they failed to exercise reasonable care, which caused their injuries.

Reasonable care is the care exercised by an ordinary, careful person. To determine whether the victim met—or failed to meet—that standard, the insurance adjuster or jury will typically compare their actions to those of a reasonably prudent person.

Proximate cause means the victim’s acts or omissions fell within the series of events that resulted in the injury. It also means the act or omission was the type of event that could foreseeably cause an injury.

In contributory negligence states, the inquiry ends there. If the victim was negligent, they cannot receive injury compensation. The law does not ask the insurer or jury to determine the impact of that negligence.

In comparative negligence states, by contrast, the fact finder must compare each party’s acts and determine their proportion of the blame for causing the injuries. There is no standard for doing this.

Instead, the jury uses their instincts. They can usually feel whether the parties were equally to blame for the accident or if one bore more fault than the other.

Effects of Contributory Negligence and Comparative Negligence Law

Contributory and comparative negligence reduce the defendant’s burden. However, the amount depends on which version applies to the case.

Contributory Negligence Example

Contributory negligence cases can take many forms. However, a common example involves traffic crashes. In many cases, both drivers will do something that might have contributed to their accident.

For example, suppose that one driver ran a stop sign, and the other driver was distracted and did not see them. Under contributory negligence, the distracted driver cannot get any contributory damages for their injuries.

Comparative Negligence Example

Comparative negligence would have a less harsh outcome. A contributory negligence insurance company would be absolved of all liability, whereas a comparative negligence insurer would have to pay for the driver’s share of the fault.

Thus, say that the stop sign runner was 75% at fault, and the distracted driver with the right-of-way was 25% at fault. In that instance, the distracted driver can still get compensated for 75% of their losses.

Learn About the Doctrine of Contributory Negligence and Comparative Negligence From ConsumerShield

Negligence is a complex issue, and it gets even more complicated when multiple parties share the blame for an accident. ConsumerShield helps people who have suffered injuries in an accident and need help understanding the law. Contact us for a free case evaluation and a referral to an attorney to advocate for you.