Your Cart

Contributory Negligence vs Comparative Negligence

Contributory negligence and comparative negligence are legal doctrines that come into play when determining the extent to which a party can be held responsible for damages or injuries in a civil lawsuit.


Contributory Negligence

Contributory negligence is an older legal doctrine that follows the "all or nothing" principle. Under this doctrine, if a plaintiff is found to have contributed to his own injuries or damages in any way, even if it is a minor percentage, he is completely barred from recovering any compensation from the defendant. In other words, if the plaintiff is even slightly at fault, he is considered to have "contributed" to the incident, and his claim is dismissed entirely.


For example, suppose a pedestrian is jaywalking across a busy street, and a driver, who is slightly above the speed limit, hits the pedestrian. Even if the driver was primarily at fault, if the pedestrian's jaywalking is deemed to be a contributing factor, the pedestrian may be considered "contributorily negligent." In such a case, the pedestrian would be completely barred from recovering any damages from the driver, regardless of the extent of the driver's negligence.


Comparative Negligence

Comparative negligence is a more modern and widely adopted legal doctrine that allows for a more equitable distribution of fault and damages. There are two main types of comparative negligence:


  • Pure comparative negligence: In jurisdictions that follow the pure comparative negligence rule, such as Alaska, Arizona, California, New York, and Florida in the United States, the court determines the total amount of damages suffered by the plaintiff and assigns a percentage of fault to each party involved in the incident, including the plaintiff. The plaintiff's recoverable damages are then reduced by his assigned percentage of fault. For example, if a court determines that a plaintiff's damages amount to $100,000 and finds the plaintiff 20% at fault, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover $80,000 (i.e., $100,000 – 20% = $80,000). The plaintiff can still recover compensation even if he is predominantly at fault, although the amount will be reduced proportionately.


  • Modified comparative negligence: In jurisdictions that follow the modified comparative negligence rule, such as Montana, Oregon, and Nevada in the United States, there is a threshold beyond which the plaintiff is barred from recovering any damages. This threshold is typically set at 50% or 51%. If the plaintiff's assigned percentage of fault falls below the threshold, he can recover damages proportionally reduced by his degree of fault. However, if his assigned percentage of fault exceeds the threshold, he is completely barred from recovering any compensation. For example, if the plaintiff is found 30% at fault and the total damages are $100,000, he would be entitled to recover $70,000 (i.e., $100,000 – 30% = $70,000). However, if the plaintiff's assigned percentage of fault exceeds the threshold, he would be completely barred from recovering any compensation. In this scenario, if the plaintiff is found 51% at fault or higher, he would not receive any damages.


Comparative negligence provides a more flexible and fair approach compared to contributory negligence, as it takes into account the relative fault of each party involved in an incident when determining liability and damages. It allows plaintiffs to recover some compensation even if they are partially responsible for the incident, although the exact rules and thresholds may vary depending on the jurisdiction.


You can learn more about this topic and relevant case law with our Tort Law notes.

Trusted by thousands of law students worldwide

Where are our students from?

Yale University

Council of Europe

Baker Mckenzie 

University of Chicago

Columbia University

New York University

University of Michigan 

INSEAD

University College London (UCL)

London School of Economics (LSE)

King’s College London (KCL)

University of London

University of Manchester

University of Zurich

University of York

Brandeis University

University of Exeter

University of Sheffield

Boston University

University of Washington

University of Leeds

University of Law

Royal Holloway, University of London 

Birkbeck, University of London

SOAS, University of London

University of Kent

University of Hull

Queen’s University Belfast

Toronto Metropolitan University

Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

Your perfect companion for open-book and closed-book exams

Diagrams and Charts

Our carefully designed diagrams and charts will guide you through complex legal issues.

Clear and Succinct Definitions

Key concepts are concisely defined to help you understand legal topics quickly.

Statutory Provisions

Statutory provisions are provided side by side with legal concepts to help you swiftly locate the relevant legislation.

Case Summaries

We have summarised important cases for you so that you don't need to read long and boring cases.

Rules and Exceptions

Rules and exceptions are clearly listed so that you know when a rule applies and when it doesn't.

Terminology

Legal terms and key concepts are explained at the beginning of each chapter to help you learn efficiently.

Case Law

Case law is provided side by side with legal concepts so that you know how legal principles and precedents were established.

Law Essay Guide

You will learn essential law exam skills and essay writing techniques that are not taught in class.

Problem Question Guide

We will show you how to answer problem questions step by step to achieve first-class results.

Structured Explanations

Complex legal concepts are broken down into concise and digestible bullet point explanations.

Legal Research

You will learn legal research techniques with our study guide and become a proficient legal researcher.

Exam-focused

All essential concepts, principles, and case law are included so that you can answer exam questions quickly.