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.