Contributory Negligence
Share
In tort law, contributory negligence is a legal concept that arises in personal injury cases when the plaintiff's own negligence contributes to his own injuries or damages. It is a defence that the defendant may raise to argue that the plaintiff should bear all of the responsibility for his injuries.
Contributory negligence is the failure of a plaintiff to exercise reasonable care for his own safety, which contributes to the injuries or damages he suffers. It implies that the plaintiff's own negligent actions or omissions played a role in causing his harm.
Contributory negligence is primarily a common law defence. If a defendant successfully proves that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, the plaintiff's recovery may be completely barred, and he may not be entitled to any compensation for his injuries.
To establish contributory negligence, certain elements must generally be proven:
The burden of proof generally rests with the defendant to establish that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. They must provide evidence showing that the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care and that this failure contributed to their own injuries.
For example, a pedestrian is crossing a road while distracted by his phone. At the same time, a driver is speeding and fails to notice him. As a result of their negligence, the pedestrian was run over by the car driven by the driver. Because the accident was unlikely to occur if the pedestrian had been more careful, he may be barred from complete and full recovery of damages from the driver.
The effect of contributory negligence varies depending on the legal system of the jurisdiction. In jurisdictions that follow a pure contributory negligence rule such as Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina and Virginia in the United States, if the plaintiff is found even slightly negligent, they are barred from recovering any damages from the defendant. Because the doctrine of contributory negligence can lead to harsh results, many jurisdictions have abolished it in favour of comparative negligence. In England and Wales, contributory negligence cannot defeat a claim completely. The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 provides that the court will determines the degree of fault attributable to each party involved in an accident. The damages awarded to the injured party are then adjusted based on his percentage of responsibility for the incident.
Many jurisdictions have adopted comparative negligence as an alternative to contributory negligence. Comparative negligence allow for the allocation of fault between the parties based on their respective degrees of negligence. There are two main types:
The comparative fault approach acknowledges that multiple parties can contribute to an accident and ensures that liability and damages are apportioned accordingly. It allows for a more nuanced assessment of each party's negligence and seeks to provide a fair and proportionate outcome.
Contributory negligence is the failure of a plaintiff to exercise reasonable care for his own safety, which contributes to the injuries or damages he suffers. It implies that the plaintiff's own negligent actions or omissions played a role in causing his harm.
Contributory negligence is primarily a common law defence. If a defendant successfully proves that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, the plaintiff's recovery may be completely barred, and he may not be entitled to any compensation for his injuries.
To establish contributory negligence, certain elements must generally be proven:
- Duty of care: The defendant must owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, meaning that he had a legal obligation to act reasonably to avoid causing harm.
- Breach of duty: The defendant must have breached his duty of care by failing to meet the standard of reasonable care.
- Causation: The plaintiff's contributory negligence must have caused or contributed to his own injuries.
- Reasonable person standard: The plaintiff's actions or omissions are assessed against the standard of a reasonably prudent person in similar circumstances.
The burden of proof generally rests with the defendant to establish that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. They must provide evidence showing that the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care and that this failure contributed to their own injuries.
For example, a pedestrian is crossing a road while distracted by his phone. At the same time, a driver is speeding and fails to notice him. As a result of their negligence, the pedestrian was run over by the car driven by the driver. Because the accident was unlikely to occur if the pedestrian had been more careful, he may be barred from complete and full recovery of damages from the driver.
The effect of contributory negligence varies depending on the legal system of the jurisdiction. In jurisdictions that follow a pure contributory negligence rule such as Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina and Virginia in the United States, if the plaintiff is found even slightly negligent, they are barred from recovering any damages from the defendant. Because the doctrine of contributory negligence can lead to harsh results, many jurisdictions have abolished it in favour of comparative negligence. In England and Wales, contributory negligence cannot defeat a claim completely. The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 provides that the court will determines the degree of fault attributable to each party involved in an accident. The damages awarded to the injured party are then adjusted based on his percentage of responsibility for the incident.
Many jurisdictions have adopted comparative negligence as an alternative to contributory negligence. Comparative negligence allow for the allocation of fault between the parties based on their respective degrees of negligence. There are two main types:
- Pure comparative negligence: Under this system, the plaintiff's recovery is reduced in proportion to his degree of fault, regardless of how high it is. Even if the plaintiff is primarily responsible, he can still recover some compensation. This system is used in some US states such as California, Washington, and New York.
- Modified comparative negligence: This system sets a threshold, often 50% or 51%, beyond which the plaintiff cannot recover any damages. If the plaintiff's fault is below the threshold, their damages are reduced based on his percentage of fault. This system is used in a majority of US states including Montana, Nevada, and Oregon.
The comparative fault approach acknowledges that multiple parties can contribute to an accident and ensures that liability and damages are apportioned accordingly. It allows for a more nuanced assessment of each party's negligence and seeks to provide a fair and proportionate outcome.
