Comparative fault, also known as comparative negligence, is a critical principle in tort law that significantly impacts personal injury claims. In essence, it’s a legal doctrine used in negligence cases to proportionally reduce the damages a plaintiff can recover based on their own degree of fault in causing the injury. This system acknowledges that in many incidents, more than one party may contribute to the occurrence of harm.
Understanding comparative fault is essential because it deviates from the older doctrine of contributory negligence and offers a more nuanced approach to assigning responsibility and compensation in injury cases. Instead of completely barring recovery if a plaintiff is even slightly at fault, comparative fault allows for partial recovery, aligning compensation more closely with the actual degree of responsibility.
How Comparative Fault Works
When a personal injury case based on negligence goes to court, and evidence suggests that the injured party (plaintiff) also contributed to their own injuries through negligence, the court will assess the degree of fault for each party involved – both the plaintiff and the defendant. This assessment is typically expressed as a percentage.
For example, consider a car accident where the court determines that the defendant was 70% at fault for running a red light, but the plaintiff was also 30% at fault for speeding. Under comparative fault principles, the plaintiff would only be able to recover 70% of their total damages. If their total damages (medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering) amounted to $10,000, they would receive $7,000.
This proportionate reduction ensures that while the negligent defendant is held accountable, the plaintiff’s own negligence is also taken into account, preventing them from receiving full compensation for harm they partially caused themselves.
Types of Comparative Fault: Pure and Modified
It’s important to note that comparative fault is not uniformly applied across all jurisdictions. Within the United States, there are primarily two main types of comparative fault, along with the older system of contributory negligence, leading to variations in how damages are awarded depending on the state.
Pure Comparative Negligence
Pure comparative negligence is the most lenient form for plaintiffs. Under this rule, a plaintiff can recover damages even if they are found to be overwhelmingly at fault for their own injuries. The recovery is simply reduced by their percentage of fault.
In a state following pure comparative negligence, a plaintiff who is found to be 99% at fault for an accident could still recover 1% of their damages from the defendant. This approach prioritizes compensation, even when the plaintiff is largely responsible for their own harm. States like California, Florida, and New York adhere to the pure comparative negligence standard.
Modified Comparative Negligence
Modified comparative negligence represents a middle ground. It allows plaintiffs to recover damages as long as their fault does not exceed a certain threshold. There are two main variations of modified comparative negligence:
50 Percent Bar Rule
Under the 50 percent bar rule, a plaintiff can recover damages if they are 49% or less at fault. However, if the plaintiff is found to be 50% or more at fault, they are barred from recovering any damages. In these states, if the plaintiff’s fault reaches or exceeds the 50% mark, the principle of comparative fault no longer applies, and they receive no compensation.
51 Percent Bar Rule
The 51 percent bar rule is slightly more plaintiff-friendly than the 50 percent rule. In states following this rule, a plaintiff can recover damages if they are 50% or less at fault. Once the plaintiff’s fault reaches 51% or more, they are then barred from recovery. This means a plaintiff can be equally at fault as the defendant (50/50) and still recover a portion of damages.
The majority of states have adopted some form of modified comparative negligence, reflecting a balance between allowing recovery for partially at-fault plaintiffs and preventing recovery for those deemed primarily responsible for their own injuries.
Comparative Fault vs. Contributory Negligence
It is crucial to distinguish comparative fault from contributory negligence, the older and much harsher legal doctrine. Contributory negligence completely bars a plaintiff from recovering any damages if they are found to be even minimally at fault for their injuries.
In a state that recognizes contributory negligence, if a plaintiff is found to be just 1% at fault, they cannot recover any compensation, regardless of how negligent the defendant was. This “all-or-nothing” approach can lead to very unfair outcomes, especially in cases where the plaintiff’s fault is minor compared to the defendant’s.
Only a few jurisdictions still adhere to contributory negligence, including Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia, along with the District of Columbia. The widespread adoption of comparative fault reflects a move towards a fairer and more equitable system of personal injury law, recognizing the complexities of shared responsibility in many accidents and injuries.
Wex Definitions Team (Last reviewed July 2022)
