Comparative negligence is a legal defense that may be used in a civil lawsuit. It asserts that a plaintiff's actions were negligent and directly contributed to the harm he suffered. In tort law, negligence is a failure to act in accordance with reasonable care in a given situation. A person has a duty to act towards others as a reasonably prudent person would in similar circumstances. A failure to act in such a way is considered a breach of that duty. If a person's breach of that duty results in someone being injured or property being damaged, then that person may be held legally responsible for the harm his negligence has caused. Comparative negligence, then, is the assertion that the behavior of the person harmed was itself a factor leading to the occurrence of the harm suffered.
The idea behind comparative negligence is to lessen the amount of a defendant's responsibility by assigning liability to those involved based on the degree of fault for which each is responsible. For example, imagine person A is speeding while driving. Driver B suddenly moves into A's lane without signaling, and driver A collides with B. Driver A may be held responsible for harm to driver B or to his vehicle, but A's liability may also be reduced because driver B negligently failed to use his blinker.
The defense of comparative negligence is important because it can affect how much a party will ultimately pay in damages. In the above example, a court might decide that A was only 60 percent at fault, instead of completely at fault, and that driver B was 40 percent at fault. That means A might be liable for only 60 percent of the total damages awarded to the other driver. Moreover, driver B may be responsible for paying 40 percent of damages done to A.
Comparative negligence is often considered to be a less severe subset of the larger law known as contributory negligence. Contributory negligence is considered more severe than comparative negligence. Under this law, any negligence at all on the part of the plaintiff, even one percent, is enough to constitute a complete defense for the defendant against the plaintiff’s claim. Under comparative negligence, the extent of a plaintiff’s own negligence only comes into play when determining the damage award.
Very few jurisdictions still employ contributory negligence law. Most have transitioned to comparative negligence. As of 2011, Alabama, the District of Columbia, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia are the remaining contributory negligence states. All others use some form of comparative negligence, either in its pure or modified form. Pure comparative negligence refers to the fact that a party can recover damages even if it is considered 99 percent at fault. In these cases, the party’s damages are simply reduced by 99 percent.
As of 2011, 13 states used the pure comparative standard including Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Washington. The remaining states follow the modified comparative fault rule where being 50 percent at fault (12 states), or 51 percent at fault (21 states) is enough to prevent the possibility of recovery. Any percentage of fault on the plaintiff that ends up being less than these respective percentages is still taken into account. However, it only reduces the amount of damages the plaintiff may recover by that percentage..
If you are involved in a negligence lawsuit, it is important to seek the advice of a qualified attorney who has experience with comparative negligence claims.