Comparative and contributory negligence are two of the most popular terms that pop up in personal injury law. This is no surprise, considering that they are the doctrines that help determine how much compensation you might receive.
Depending on your state, the rules can vary quite a bit. Some places are more forgiving, allowing you to get compensation even if you were partly responsible.
Others, however, can be pretty harsh. If you’re found even slightly at fault, you could end up with nothing.
If you don’t know the laws that are applicable in your state, you should probably speak with a personal injury lawyer.
An Overview of Comparative Negligence
Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine that allows a plaintiff to recover damages even if they are partly at fault for the accident. Instead of an all-or-nothing approach, damages are awarded based on the percentage of fault attributed to each party.
Pros of Comparative Negligence:
- You’re not entirely out of luck if you share some fault.
- The court considers all factors that led to the accident.
- Drivers might be more careful, knowing they can still be held responsible.
Cons of Comparative Negligence:
- Figuring out percentages of fault can get complicated, and expert opinions may have to be sought.
- If you’re found at fault, your compensation might be reduced, which can be frustrating since you’re still the victim.
- In some states, you can’t get anything if you’re found more than 50% at fault.
An Overview of Contributory Negligence
This is a much stricter rule. If you’re even 1% at fault for the accident, you can’t get any money for your injuries.
So, if you were in a situation where you didn’t check your mirrors before changing lanes and got hit, that tiny bit of fault could mean you walk away with nothing, even if your injuries are serious.
Pros of Contributory Negligence:
- It’s straightforward; you don’t get anything if you’re at fault.
- People might drive more cautiously, knowing any mistake could cost them.
- There’s less ambiguity in who gets what.
Cons of Contributory Negligence:
- You might have done everything right, but a small mistake could cost you everything.
- People might be less likely to pursue claims if they fear losing everything.
- It can leave genuinely injured people without help, which feels unfair.
Where the Two Meet
So, where do comparative and contributory negligence meet? In some states, there are modified rules that create a blend of both concepts.
For instance, in states with modified comparative negligence (one of the types of comparative negligence), you can still recover damages as long as you’re not more than 50% at fault. It’s game over for your compensation if you are over that threshold.
Core Differences Between the Two
The main difference between these two systems is how fault affects compensation. The most significant difference between these two is what happens when you share blame. With comparative negligence, you can still get money even if you’re partly at fault.
But with contributory negligence, you get nothing if you’re even a tiny bit responsible. Also, not all states follow the same rules, so where you live can affect your case.