Table Of Contents
Understanding Contributory Negligence in Personal Injury Cases
Contributory negligence is a legal concept in which a plaintiff in a personal injury case must demonstrate that the defendant acted unreasonably and caused the injury, making the defendant financially liable [1.].
However, even if the plaintiff proves the defendant’s negligence, the defendant can still avoid liability by raising contributory negligence as a defense in some states.
“Under the concept of contributory negligence, even though a defendant is at least partly at fault for an accident, they can’t be held responsible because the plaintiff was also partly at fault.”
For instance, if a plaintiff fails to use a turn signal and is struck by a speeding driver, both parties share some blame, and under contributory negligence, the plaintiff might not receive compensation.
This strict doctrine is only applied in a few states, including Maryland, Virginia, Alabama, and North Carolina, and contrasts with the more commonly used comparative negligence, where damages are apportioned based on each party’s level of fault.
Comparative Negligence and Its Impact on Personal Injury Claims
Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine that courts use to adjust the amount of damages a plaintiff can recover in a negligence claim based on the degree of fault attributed to each party involved [2.].
When an injured party is partially responsible for the incident, the court assigns a percentage of fault to both the plaintiff and the defendant.
For example, if the court finds the defendant 60% at fault and the plaintiff 40% at fault, the plaintiff can only recover 60% of the total damages.
There are two main types of comparative negligence in the U.S., along with contributory negligence, leading to varying damage awards depending on the state.
Pure Comparative Negligence:
Under pure comparative negligence, plaintiffs can recover damages even if they are predominantly at fault, with their compensation reduced by their percentage of fault. For instance, a plaintiff 99% at fault can still recover 1% of the damages. States like California, Florida, and New York follow this rule.
Modified Comparative Negligence:
Modified comparative negligence is divided into two categories: the 50% bar rule and the 51% bar rule.
- 50% Bar Rule: Plaintiffs cannot recover damages if they are 50% or more at fault.
- 51% Bar Rule: Plaintiffs are barred from recovering damages if they are found to be 51% or more at fault.
The majority of states adhere to the modified comparative negligence principle, with different thresholds for barring recovery.
Related Articles:
- What Is the Difference Between Bodily Injury and Personal Injury
- What Does a Personal Injury Lawyer Do
- Personal Injury & Accidents Lawsuits
California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law
California operates under a pure comparative negligence system, allowing injured parties to recover damages even if they are 99% at fault for an accident [3.].
Unlike modified comparative negligence states that cap fault at 50%, California courts reduce the plaintiff’s compensation by their percentage of fault.
For instance, if you are found 20% responsible for a car accident, you would receive $80,000 from a $100,000 verdict, reflecting a 20% reduction.
“To prove the defendant’s fault and maximize a recovery award, you or your attorney will have to show that the defendant owed you a duty of care, breached this duty, and caused your accident.”
These are the essential elements of a personal injury claim in California, and demonstrating them effectively can ensure you recover the appropriate percentage of compensation, regardless of your degree of fault.
Duty of Care in California
In California, the concept of “duty of care” is a cornerstone of personal injury law, requiring individuals and organizations to act with reasonable caution to prevent harm to others. This legal obligation spans various scenarios, from everyday activities to professional duties, ensuring that people and entities conduct themselves in a way that minimizes the risk of injury to others.
To win a personal injury case in California, you must establish these critical elements:
- Existence of Duty: You need to prove that the defendant owed you a specific duty of care, which can vary based on the situation, such as a driver’s duty to drive safely or a doctor’s responsibility to provide proper medical care.
- Breach of Duty: You must demonstrate that the defendant failed to fulfill their duty of care, meaning they did not act as a reasonably careful person or professional would under similar circumstances.
- Causation: You must establish a direct connection between the defendant’s breach of duty and the injuries you sustained, showing that your harm was a direct result of their actions or negligence.
- Damages: Lastly, you must prove that you suffered actual damages due to the breach of duty, such as medical bills, pain and suffering, lost wages, and other related losses.
Understanding and proving the “duty of care” is essential for building a strong personal injury case in California, as it forms the legal basis for seeking compensation for your injuries and damages.
Get a Free Lawsuit Evaluation With Our Lawyers
The Litigation Group at Schmidt & Clark, LLP is an experienced team of trial lawyers that focuses on the representation of plaintiffs in lawsuits. We are handling individual litigation nationwide and are currently accepting new legal challenges in all 50 states.
If you or a loved one was involved with these matters, you should contact our law firm immediately for a free case evaluation. You may be entitled to a settlement by filing a suit and we can help.
References:
1. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/personal-injury/contributory-negligence/
2. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/comparative_negligence
3. https://www.ericratinoff.com/what-is-pure-comparative-negligence-in-california/