24/7 Live Answering
Free Case Evaluation
Free Case Evaluation
(404) 526-8857

Comparative Negligence

Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine used in the United States to allocate fault among parties involved in an accident, particularly when both parties have contributed to the incident. This principle plays a critical role in personal injury lawsuits, where the damages awarded to an injured party can be reduced based on the degree to which their own negligence contributed to the accident.

The concept of comparative negligence evolved as a response to the harsher rule of contributory negligence, which still prevails in a few jurisdictions. Under contributory negligence, if an injured party was even slightly responsible for their own injuries, they would be barred from recovering any compensation from the other party, regardless of how negligent the other party was. This was seen as often leading to unfair outcomes, particularly in cases where the injured party’s fault was minimal compared to the other party’s.

Comparative negligence mitigates these harsh outcomes by allowing the injured party to recover damages even if they are partially at fault, with the understanding that their compensation will be reduced by a percentage equivalent to their share of fault. This approach aims to distribute financial responsibility more equitably based on the actual degree of fault of each party involved.

There are two primary forms of comparative negligence recognized in the United States: pure comparative negligence and modified comparative negligence.

Pure Comparative Negligence: Under this rule, an injured party can recover damages even if they are 99% at fault, although their recovery will be reduced by their percentage of fault. For instance, if a plaintiff suffers $100,000 in damages but is found to be 90% at fault, they can still recover 10% of their damages, or $10,000. States like California and New York use this system.

Modified Comparative Negligence: This is the more common form and is further divided into two types:

  • 50% Bar Rule: An injured party cannot recover if they are found to be 50% or more at fault. If their fault is less than 50%, they can recover a proportionate amount of the damages. States like Georgia and Colorado follow this rule.
  • 51% Bar Rule: Here, an injured party cannot recover if they are found to be 51% or more at fault. If their fault is 50% or less, they can recover damages reduced by their percentage of fault. This rule is followed in states such as Illinois and Texas.

Comparative negligence requires a thorough investigation and analysis of each party’s actions leading up to the accident. In a trial, the jury or the judge will evaluate the evidence and determine the percentage of fault that belongs to each party based on the circumstances of the case. The findings impact the final compensation each party can receive, making it a critical element of personal injury law.

This doctrine encourages all parties in a potential lawsuit to evaluate their own contributions to an incident before proceeding with litigation, as the financial outcome depends significantly on these determinations. Additionally, it underscores the importance of gathering and presenting comprehensive evidence that accurately reflects each party’s involvement in the incident.