The tort principle of comparative negligence is utilised by the court to minimise the number of damages that a plaintiff can receive in a negligence-based claim based on the degree of fault each party contributed to the incident.
In particular, when an injured victim is partially to blame due to their own negligence, the court may allocate a percentage of blame to both the injured victim and the perpetrator.
For example, if the court finds the defendant to be 60% at fault and the plaintiff to be 40% at fault, the plaintiff may only obtain 60% of the damages, rather than the whole amount.
If you have been in a traumatic accident, you will almost certainly need the assistance of an experienced lawyer. Because the US employs modified comparative negligence, it is important to seek the assistance of a personal injury lawyer who is equipped to defend charges of liability on your behalf.
It might entail not only increased compensation but even no award at all in some situations.
For most people, the emotional impact of a catastrophic injury can linger for as long as it takes the injury to heal or longer,causing them to replay the accident over and over.
Whether it’s the memory of a car accident, a slip and fall on an ice sidewalk, or whining to a dismissive nurse about discomfort in your side, only to find yourself in intensive care days later, such memories can be unsettling and devastating.
In the United States, there are two categories of comparative negligence, as well as contributory negligence, therefore the assessment of damages differs by state.
Pure Comparative Negligence:
States that utilise comparative negligence can apply one of three rules. “Pure comparative negligence” is the initial sort of comparative negligence. This concept, which is applied in Alaska and California, permits a plaintiff to recover damages from the defendant minus their own percentage of liability.
For example, if a plaintiff’s total losses are $100,000 and the plaintiff is 25% at fault, the plaintiff can claim $75,000 while being accountable for the remaining $25,000. Even though the plaintiff is 99% to blame for the accident, he or she will only be entitled to 1% of the damages.
Under the pure comparative negligence rule, the plaintiff can seek compensation for the 1% of damages caused by the defendant even though they are 99% at fault. In other words, the amount of damages that the plaintiff can obtain is limited by the court’s determination of fault. This rule is followed by about one-third of the states, including California, Florida, and New York.
Comparative Negligence Modified:
The second and third categories of comparative negligence are both referred to as “modified comparative negligence.” In some modified comparative negligence states, such as Colorado and Maine, a plaintiff cannot recover any damages if the jury concludes that he or she is equally (or more) to blame for an accident.
In other modified comparative negligence states, such as Hawaii and Iowa, a plaintiff cannot recover damages if he or she is judged to be more responsible than the defendant (51% or more).
This regulation may have exceptions. In Michigan, for example, if a plaintiff is 51% to blame, his or her economic awards are lowered, while noneconomic damages are disallowed entirely.
In car accidents, comparative carelessness is most usually employed to apportion responsibility. If two drivers in an accident violate the same traffic laws, both may have their claims refused.
Many insurance companies assign fault to drivers based on a proportion, such as 70/30. When two people are involved in an automobile accident, the insurers utilise comparative negligence to determine who is at fault.
Determining who is responsible for an accident is an important component of insurance. Insurance firms use this to ensure that they are only held liable for the damages caused by their insured customer.
Furthermore, defence attorneys will try to restrict liability to the greatest extent possible. Insurers and courts assess how to assign fault after reviewing the events that contributed to an accident.
The essence of comparative carelessness is what makes up this approach. The judgement of fault will eventually lead to the determination of how much the insurance must pay.
Negligence as a Contributory Factor:
In a contributory negligence state, the plaintiff cannot recover damages if he or she was careless and contributed to the accident in any way. A plaintiff may be precluded from recovering if he or she is found to be 1% or more to blame for an accident.
Historically, contributory negligence was the rule in all states, which resulted in serious consequences. Many states created and implemented comparative negligence laws. Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. are the only states that still utilise contributory negligence.
The plaintiff cannot obtain damages under the contributory negligence rule if they contributed in any way to the accident. In other words, the state’s contributory negligence rule bars the plaintiff from claiming damages even if they were just 1% negligent.
The contributory negligence rule is recognized in only four states and the District of Columbia: Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia.
How to Establish Comparative Negligence in Personal Injury Claims
Defendants who desire to invoke the comparative negligence defence must demonstrate:
- The plaintiff had a chance to prevent the accident.
- The plaintiff was more careless in protecting themselves from harm than a hypothetical reasonable person would have been in the same situation.
It can be difficult to determine the plaintiff’s percentage of fault. Both the plaintiff and defendant can benefit from the counsel of an experienced attorney in providing evidence that will decide this problem.
There are numerous sides and views in every accident. Consider a five-car accident on Interstate 285. It not only creates a chaotic scene and the possibility of traffic closures, but it’s also unclear how the accident occurred or what triggered the chain reaction.
However, if a crash causes harm to victims, a personal injury lawyer must determine who was at fault. Every driver will almost certainly deny liability and point fingers in various areas. In many circumstances, many drivers are careless and may be held liable for the harm suffered by others.
Conclusion
Accident or injury claims are typically predicated on an allegation of “negligence.” Negligence is defined as “the failure to do something that a prudent and reasonable person, informed by the principles that typically govern the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something that a prudent and reasonable person would not do.
” This is often the legal basis for holding a person or a business organisation accountable for one’s injury, from car accidents to slip and fall instances.
