Many people hear the term comparative negligence without understanding what it is or how it can impact their personal injury lawsuit. After all, this is a complicated-sounding legal term that can be confusing at first.
So, what is comparative negligence, and how does it work in real-world cases?
Put simply, comparative negligence is the rule of law used in accident cases where more than one person is to blame. If you have been injured in an accident – such as a car – but share some of the blame for the incident, comparative negligence will be used to judge the levels of the fault of everyone involved.
In practice, comparative negligence is much simpler than it sounds. Understanding how the rule works is important for injury victims who have been in an accident and want to sue for compensation.
Understanding comparative negligence is the key to comprehending how a court of law will apportion blame in a personal injury case and how this will help decide a compensatory payout. Read on for an in-depth selection of pictures, GIFs, and information to help anyone understand comparative negligence.
If you have been involved in an accident and suffered a personal injury, you can also contact Bisnar Chase for expert help tackling a negligence case.
In its simplest possible form, comparative negligence is a rule of law used to establish the fault of all parties involved in an accident. It is used when multiple parties are at least partially to blame for an accident leading to a personal injury, including the injured victim.
When people sue over an accident involving an injury, such as a traffic accident, the comparative negligence rule is used to attribute responsibility to those involved. It is also used to help decide the amount of financial compensation awarded.
Example:
Please note: All fault percentages used in examples throughout this page are hypothetical. They are not based on real-life court results and are purely demonstrative.
In this scenario, both drivers share some portion of the blame. It is assigned as a percentage per the comparative negligence rule.
This means that Driver A’s compensation will be reduced by 20%, reflecting their role in causing the accident.
If a jury awards Driver A compensation of $20,000, this will be reduced by 20%. This means they will receive $16,000 – 80% of the total sum.
Many people see the comparative negligence system as the fairest way of compensating for the pain and suffering of a victim. The victim is compensated for the negligence of others resulting in an injury. But their own negligent actions are also taken into account. As such, this system is widely used in the United States.
However, other systems are also used in various parts of the country. Some states use a modified version of comparative negligence. In contrast, other states use a system that blocks ANY compensation for victims who share a portion of the blame for an accident – even if they are only judged as 1% at fault.
The comparative negligence rule can also be used to divide blame into cases that feature multiple defendants.
While comparative negligence is chiefly a rule applied to establish fault, it can also be used as a legal defense by a defendant.
If a defendant is being sued, their lawyer may argue comparative negligence to show that the plaintiff was also a significant contributor to the accident in question.
In such cases, it is not enough for the defendant to show that the plaintiff’s actions resulted in a more significant injury. The defense must establish that the victim’s actions aided in causing the accident.
While a comparative negligence defense would not absolve a defendant from blame, it would reduce their level of fault and any costs they are ordered to pay.
Comparative negligence – also known as comparative fault – was not the first rule of law used in the United States in personal injury cases. The country originally adopted a method called contributory negligence. This rule is still used in a handful of states and essentially precludes victims who share any degree of fault from receiving a cent in compensation. More detail on contributory negligence is included later in this guide.
From 1824 onward, contributory negligence was the accepted rule in law courts. However, there were rumblings of change in the second half of the 19th Century. Several states explored decisions favoring a plaintiff who shared some level of blame when it was far less than the defendants. While it did not lead to a rule change at the time, it did provide an early basis for the comparative negligence law.
Comparative negligence was finally introduced in 1908 as part of the launch of a new Federal Employer’s Liability Act. Various states started to adopt different versions of the rule, with Mississippi passing the new statute in 1910. Others followed throughout the 1930s-60s, with some states even making the switch as recently as the 1990s. California made the switch on the back of a ruling in 1975. However, a handful of states still use the old contributory negligence ruling rather than comparative negligence.
Comparative negligence is used when multiple parties display negligence in some way. So, let’s start at the beginning – what counts as negligence?
Negligence is defined as failing to act appropriately or take the proper care, leading to an accident or putting other people at risk.
For example, negligence in a car crash case could include:
Each of these negligent actions represents a danger to other drivers on the road and could easily result in an accident.
These are just a few examples of types of negligence, but it is not restricted to traffic collisions. Negligence can refer to any careless behavior which leads to an accident in any setting.
Any accident involving multiple parties and a personal injury of some type can result in legal action and involve comparative negligence consideration.
These could include:
As we’ve mentioned, the first rule of law used in accident cases was contributory negligence, which is extremely rigid, known as an ‘all-or-nothing’ rule.
With contributory negligence, an injury victim found to be at fault for the accident in question is automatically barred from receiving any financial compensation. Any flexibility is eliminated from the law with this system.
This is in contrast to comparative negligence, which allows compensation to victims, even if they share a portion of the blame for the accident. However, the compensation is reduced by a percentage according to the level of blame they take.
Comparative Negligence is generally seen as a fairer legal rule to work to. While a victim might share some blame for an accident, the other party might carry much more responsibility. In such cases, it might seem unfair to automatically disqualify a victim from financial recovery for their loss or suffering. Contributory negligence is a hard-line stance, while comparative negligence provides a middle ground.
There are two forms of comparative negligence which are used in different states. The different types are named Pure Comparative Negligence and Modified Comparative Negligence. California uses the pure rule. This means that if you are involved in an accident in California but share partial blame – and decide to take legal action against the other party – the legal ruling of pure comparative negligence will be used to help decide the case. But how do the pure and modified rules differ?
Pure comparative negligence means that an injured party can take legal action after an incident, even if they were largely at fault.
Example:
Driver A might be adjudged to be 90% at fault for this accident, compared to 10% fault for Driver B.
However, Driver A could still take legal action under the pure comparative negligence rule. Their level of fault would, however, reduce their compensation. In this case, they would only receive 10% of the judged value due to their own negligence.
Modified comparative negligence is very similar to the pure version of the rule used in California. However, it has a fundamental difference.
A victim who shares blame can still take legal action, and their compensation award will still be diluted in accordance with their level of blame.
However, with the modified rule, the exact level of fault that the plaintiff shares is important. Once the injury victim passes a certain threshold of responsibility, they can no longer receive any compensation.
To confuse things further, there are two types of modified comparative negligence rules – the 50% rule and the 51% rule.
So – in a state which uses a 50% modified comparative negligence rule – an accident victim would be able to sue and receive compensation, as long as their level of fault was less than 50%.
The 51% rule states that victims can receive damages if they share fault up to 50%.
A modified comparative negligence rule is a middle ground between contributory and pure comparative negligence. It allows those sharing fault to seek damages. But it does not reward those who show extreme negligence and are judged to have been the major contributing factor behind an accident or injury.
However, victims in California do not have to worry about the modified rules. Under the pure comparative negligence rules, they can seek compensation no matter how much fault they share – up to 99%.
This is a full rundown of which rule is used by each area of the United States.
| Alaska | Arizona | California | Florida |
| Kentucky | Louisiana | Mississippi | Missouri |
| New Mexico | New York | Rhode Island | South Dakota |
| Washington |
| Arkansas | Colorado | Georgia | Idaho |
| Kansas | Maine | Nebraska | North Dakota |
| Oklahoma | Tennessee | Utah | West Virginia |
| Connecticut | Delaware | Hawaii | Illinois |
| Indiana | Iowa | Massachusetts | Michigan |
| Minnesota | Montana | Nevada | New Hampshire |
| New Jersey | Ohio | Oregon | Pennsylvania |
| South Carolina | Texas | Vermont | Wisconsin |
| Wyoming |
| Alabama | Maryland | North Carolina | Virginia |
| Washington D.C. |
The original comparative negligence case in California was Li v. Yellow Cab Co. At the time, California was still using the all-or-nothing contributory negligence system. However, when this case was taken to the California Supreme Court on appeal, the state decided to adopt the comparative negligence rule.
The accident which sparked the Li v Yellow Cab Co. court case happened in Los Angeles in 1968. The plaintiff, Nga Li, was traveling on the inside lane of Alvarado Street, approaching Third Street. Before reaching the intersection, she attempted to turn left – across the three lanes running in the opposite direction – and into a service station on the other side of the street.
As Li turned left, a taxi from the Yellow Cab Co. approached from the opposite direction and struck the rear end of her car. The crash resulted in major damage to the car and injuries to Li, and she decided to take legal action.
In the trial, it was established that both drivers shared some level of fault. The taxi was traveling too quickly and passed through a yellow light on its way through the intersection at the crest of a slight hill. It was judged that the speed and manner of passing through the intersection were unsafe.
However, the court decided that Nga Li was also negligent and that her left turn with a vehicle approaching created a hazard.
By the letter of the contributory negligence law at the time, Li was therefore automatically barred from receiving any compensation for her injuries and the vehicle damage sustained in the crash.
But Li decided to appeal the ruling and took it to the California Supreme Court. In 1975, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling and, in doing so, decided to adopt comparative negligence.
In making this decision, the court said: “The all-or-nothing rule of contributory negligence can and ought to be superseded by a rule which assesses liability in proportion to fault.”
This set a new precedent for comparative negligence to be used in future cases in California.
n personal injury cases, any financial awards will depend on a whole range of factors, such as the victim’s medical bills relating to the accident, the cost of property damage, lost wages, and potential future rehabilitation expenses, as well as compensation for pain and suffering.
As such, no set compensation amount can be expected. It will be entirely dependent on the specific circumstances of an individual case.
In a comparative negligence case, the amount decided on will be diluted based on the percentage of fault attributed to the person in question.
Comparative negligence can also help determine compensation awards in cases involving multiple defendants.
The rule can assign fault percentages to each defendant, determining how much each has to pay in compensation to the victim.
Example:
In some cases, two at-fault parties may be involved in an accident, and both decide to sue the other. Once again, the comparative fault could be used to decide on the correct level of fault for each party, with both paying (and receiving) compensation, which will be reduced based on their fault percentage.
Example:
Trying to get your head around the negligence system can be a minefield. Hopefully, our guide has provided a good understanding of the comparative negligence rules and applications. However, it is still best to leave your case to the expert personal injury attorneys at Bisnar Chase.
Whether you have been involved in a car accident or have suffered another kind of personal injury in a shared-blame situation, Bisnar Chase can help. With 45 years in business and more than $750 million won for our clients, we are at our best when fighting for personal injury justice. Bisnar Chase has a 99% success rate and specializes in achieving the best possible outcomes for clients. Trust our skilled attorneys to navigate comparative negligence regulations, argue your case effectively, and secure the best compensation package for your pain and suffering.
For help with a negligence injury case, contact Bisnar Chase now at (800) 561-4887. For more inofrmation related to a personal injury visit our resources page.
Our staff will evaluate your case submission and respond in a timely manner.
Consumer Class Action
Motor Vehicle Accident
Auto Defect – Seat Manufacturers, Johnson Controls
Motorcycle Accident
Defective Seatback
Bicycle Accident
I’m so impressed with this law firm. I lost my mother because of a seat defect when she was rear-ended in an auto accident and Bisnar Chase stepped up and took our case. The staff is wonderful and Brian Chase took his time explaining everything via phone with me. I’m honored to have the best of the best working on our family’s behalf, trying to get justice for my Mom, because of a negligent car company still manufacturing faulty seats. I look forward to working with this firm and am hopeful for a positive outcome. Thank you so much, Brian Chase. I know you will work your hardest on this case. God Bless you.
Bisnar Chase is a model #veteranowned business that is purpose-driven — showing the power of patriotism in action! Because of Bisnar Chase, low-income veterans will be able to forge new futures at home through pro bono legal care. Team Veterans Legal Institute is grateful to have Bisnar Chase as a sponsor for Lawyers for Warriors — supporting the promise to be there for our veterans when they need it most.
I had an attorney for my truck accident who wanted almost 60% of what my case was worth. Worse than that, he was willing to settle for $5,000.00 with the insurance company even though I was still treating for whiplash and back pain. I contacted Bisnar Chase Personal Injury Attorneys because a friend recommended them. My case was handled exceptionally well! I was being kept notified throughout the whole process and only when I was comfortable with the settlement figure, did my attorney Gavin Long, accept it. I felt like we were working together and I felt listened to. I would refer Bisnar Chase to anyone who wants quality over quantity!
I wasn’t sure if I needed a personal injury attorney because I’d never been in a car accident before. I assumed I’d just go straight through the other driver’s insurance but that quickly became a nightmare. I spent months fighting over the simplest of issues about my case, which was 100% the other driver’s fault. I hired Bisnar Chase to see if they could just take it over for me. I was really impressed with how much they communicated everything to me! I suddenly started getting calls from the insurance company, imagine that. My final settlement was 6 times what I asked for to begin with. Everyone I dealt with was really involved in what was best for me, not the insurance.
800-561-4887
Copyright & Disclaimer
Disclaimer: The legal information presented on this domain should not be construed to be formal legal advice or the formation of an attorney-client relationship. Any results set forth here depend on the facts of that case, and the results will differ from case to case. Bisnar Chase Personal Injury Attorneys, LLP, serves all of California, including Orange County, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego. In addition, we represent clients in various other states through our affiliations with local law firms. Through the local firm, we will be admitted to practice law in their state, pro hac vice. Visiting this website means you agree to our cookies, terms of service, and privacy policy.
Copyright © 1978- 2024 Bisnar Chase Personal Injury Attorneys, LLP – All rights reserved. XML Sitemap
