When dealing with personal injury law, understanding legal doctrine is crucial to protect yourself and to seek fair compensation for your injuries and losses. Two key pieces of legal terminology to familiarize yourself with are contributory negligence and comparative negligence. These doctrines play a role in determining if a plaintiff (the person or group that initiated the lawsuit) will receive compensation if they are found partly responsible for the incident. Different states and territories follow different rules and variants of these doctrines, so it is crucial to know the differences. Now, with this understanding, let us take a closer look at contributory vs comparative negligence, and what they mean to you. 

7 Tips to Promote Road Safety 

Contributory vs Comparative Negligence: Defining Key Terms 

Contributory Negligence 

Contributory negligence is an all-or-nothing legal doctrine for a plaintiff. In these cases, a plaintiff will be prevented from recovering any compensation if they are found partly responsible for the incident.  

Comparative Negligence 

Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine that splits the responsibility and payment of damages based on each party’s contribution to the incident.  

Within comparative negligence, there are two different forms to be aware of: pure comparative negligence and modified comparative negligence.  

  • Pure comparative negligence allows both parties involved in the incident to seek compensation for damages, regardless of the share of the fault. For example, if a party is found 99% liable for an incident, they could still seek compensation for the 1% that was caused by the other party. 
  • Modified comparative negligence allows a party to collect from the other but depends on the amount of fault. There are two rules to this: the 50% rule and the 51% rule, and the rule in place is dependent on the state. In 50% rule states, a party cannot collect if they are 50% or more responsible. In 51% rule states, it is the 51% bar that stops a party from collecting compensation. 

Contributory vs Comparative Negligence: What is the Difference 

Obviously, these two doctrines could have extremely different results for a plaintiff. In contributory negligence, a plaintiff can either gain all the compensation or none of it, as they will be disqualified from any compensation if they are found to be partly at fault. In comparative negligence cases (depending on the state) a plaintiff may be found liable for a portion of the damages, and in some cases, may be unable to gain any compensation at all. 

In terms of fairness and equity, contributory negligence equates all faults to be equal, finding that if a plaintiff is at fault, regardless of the case, they are just as liable as any other responsible party, so they are not compensated.  

Comparative negligence aims to be more just, as it attempts to measure and calculate liability between parties, and base compensation on that. The challenge, then, is calculating what actions are equivalent to what amounts of liability. Then, looking into pure comparative negligence, finding that compensation can be sought for the other party’s share of fault; and the intrigue of the 50% and 51% rules. 

Two professionals looking something over on a tablet in an office.
Legal doctrine can be complicated Do not hesitate to consult a lawyer to make sure everything is clear to you

Application in Legal Proceedings 

The following 4 states (and the District of Columbia) follow the contributory negligence rule: Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia. 

Almost one-third of states follow pure comparative negligence, including California, Florida, and New York.

A majority of states follow modified comparative negligence, including Indiana.

If someone is considering a personal injury lawsuit, they should be aware of what principle their state follows. In many cases, this will influence if one wants to move forward with a case.  

Real-World Applications 

As mentioned, there would be cases that a potential plaintiff may or may not pursue based on their state’s laws.  

For example, consider someone who was injured in a car accident and lived in a state that followed the contributory negligence principle, such as Virginia. Before they go to court, they may consider if they were at all liable for the accident. If they were, they may choose not to pursue legal action, as they would be ineligible for compensation if found liable. 

Alternatively, suppose this same incident took place in a state with some form of comparative negligence, such as Indiana. Indiana follows modified comparative negligence with the 51% principle. If this individual is confident that they were less than 51% at fault, they may go ahead and pursue a personal injury lawsuit. 

Moving Forward 

It is important to remember that under contributory negligence, if a plaintiff is at all liable for an incident related to their personal injury case, they are not eligible for compensation. Conversely, comparative negligence means that a party is eligible to push for compensation based on how liable another party is for an incident, pending state regulations. It is critical that you know what doctrine your state follows, to ensure that you are making the best choices in legal proceedings.  

If you were involved in an accident, contact Foley & Murphy for a consultation, and we can discuss the next steps to ensure the best path forward for you. Foley & Murphy offer over 50 years of expert personal injury legal services across the United States and are here for you. 

Hiring a personal injury lawyer is a big decision. Learn the right questions to ask make sure you get the best representation!