No fee unless we win!
2 Oct 2019,
 

Understanding the differences between comparative versus contributory negligence is important, as it’s fundamental to proving your personal injury claim.

Our California personal injury attorneys will explain.

California follows the legal principle of comparative negligence, which is dramatically different than contributory negligence.

Only a handful of states still follow the rule of contributory negligence, which is rather harsh.

Please don’t hesitate to contact us today for assistance with your personal injury case. We offer free case evaluations.

“This is a team that truly has heart and will take care of you, whether it’s a simple consultation or if your case goes all the way through to settlement…”

I’ve been in their office many times and I’ve witnessed the compassion, knowledge and integrity that Gordon and his team have with their clients. If you’re seeking a personal injury attorney, I would not hesitate to get the Levinson Law Group on your side. – Marcy B. Read more client testimonials…

Contributory Negligence in California

Contributory negligence is one of the older legal doctrines, with its origins tracing back to common law in England. Initially, it appeared in the context of employment law, where employers used it as a defense against lawsuits filed by workers for injuries sustained on the job. The primary goal of this doctrine was to reduce fraudulent claims and mitigate careless behavior.

The concept of contributory negligence suggests that if an individual is injured as a result of another person’s negligence, they are not entitled to compensation if they themselves were also negligent in any way. Essentially, it means that in jurisdictions following contributory negligence rules, a plaintiff’s own negligence completely prevents them from recovering any damages.

Due to its severe implications, many states have abandoned contributory negligence in favor of comparative negligence, which involves allocating fault between the parties involved in the incident.

Currently, only four states and the District of Columbia still follow the pure contributory negligence rule. These states are Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia.

An example of contributory negligence could involve a situation where a driver runs a red light and crashes into your car, but you were not wearing your seatbelt. If it is determined that not wearing your seatbelt contributed to the severity of your injuries, you may be denied compensation for your damages. Even if the other driver was found to be 95% at fault and you were only 5% at fault, under contributory negligence, you would still be barred from receiving any compensation.

Before the establishment of workers’ compensation laws, employers could use the doctrine of contributory negligence as a defense to prevent lawsuits from their employees. In most cases, workers found it challenging to win their claims, as it was difficult to prove that their injuries were not at least partly their own fault.

Comparative Negligence in California

Comparative negligence is divided into two main types: pure comparative negligence and modified comparative negligence.

Under the comparative liability system, individuals can still recover a portion of their damages even if they are partially at fault for the accident. This approach allows for a fair distribution of responsibility among all parties involved. Several states, including California, follow the principle of pure comparative negligence, where a plaintiff’s damages are reduced in proportion to their degree of fault.

What is Pure Comparative Negligence?

In states that follow pure comparative negligence, a person can recover compensation only to the extent they are not responsible for their own injuries. For instance, if a jury determines that a person is 20% at fault for their injuries and they are awarded $100,000, they would receive only 80% of the total award, which is $80,000. This reduction reflects the plaintiff’s proportionate responsibility for the accident.

However, a significant downside to pure comparative negligence is that the defendant, even if they are largely responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries, can still recover damages. For example, using the scenario above, the plaintiff who receives 80% of their damages would still be responsible for 20% of the defendant’s damages. In cases where the plaintiff is 99% at fault for the injuries, they could still recover 1% of the damages from the defendant.

To address this issue, some states have adopted a similar but slightly different principle known as modified comparative negligence.

What is Modified Comparative Negligence?

Most states adopt modified comparative negligence, which allows individuals to recover a portion of their damages even if they are partially at fault. However, their level of fault cannot exceed a certain threshold.

The threshold is typically set at either 50% or 51%.

In states with the 50% threshold, the plaintiff can only recover damages if they are 49% at fault or less. If the plaintiff is found to be 50% at fault, no recovery is allowed. On the other hand, in states with the 51% threshold, a plaintiff who is 50% at fault would still be eligible to recover damages, since they are under the 51% limit. However, if the plaintiff is determined to be 55% at fault, they are barred from any recovery, and the defendant can claim 45% of their damages.

There are 12 states that follow the 50% threshold rule:

  • Arkansas
  • Colorado
  • Georgia
  • Idaho
  • Kansas
  • Maine
  • Nebraska
  • North Dakota
  • South Carolina
  • Tennessee
  • Utah
  • West Virginia

The remaining 21 states use the 51% threshold rule.

How to Maximize Compensation in Your California Personal Injury Claim

Proving fault in your California personal injury claim is the best way to maximize your compensation. However, if you attempt to handle the claim on your own, you may not be nearly as successful. You need a skilled California personal injury attorney on your side.

They can also explain the main differences between contributory negligence vs. comparative negligence if you still have additional questions.

Your attorney will work tirelessly to prove the liability of the other party to maximize your potential recovery. The sooner you retain an attorney, the sooner he or she can get started on your case. This includes collecting evidence and opening an investigation.

There may be a need to retain experts to help your case, and your attorney likely has an entire portfolio of respected individuals who he or she can call depending on the need. Some common experts can include accident reconstructions, medical doctors, investigators, subject-matter experts, and more. They can provide additional proof that will build a strong case. If evidence shows the defendant was 100% liable, then you are entitled to 100% of your damages.

Hire a California Personal Injury Attorney

At Levinson Law Group, our skilled California personal injury attorneys are committed advocates for you. Our team has the necessary skills and extensive experience to handle a wide range of personal injury claims.

To set up a free, no obligation review of your case, please contact Levinson Law Group today. We have offices conveniently located in Oceanside and Carlsbad and serve communities throughout the region, including San Diego, Encinitas, Vista, Escondido, San Marcos, and car accident attorneys in Valley Center.

Don’t attempt to handle your injury claim on your own. Let us handle the arduous process of negotiating your personal injury claim while you concentrate on getting better and returning back to work and your daily life.

Contact us today or call (760) 827-1700 to schedule your free initial consultation.

Categories