Comparative fault, also known as comparative negligence, is a legal principle applied in tort law to proportionally reduce the damages a plaintiff can recover in a negligence claim. This reduction is based on the degree to which each party – the plaintiff and the defendant – contributed to the incident through their negligence. In essence, comparative fault acknowledges that in some accidents, the injured party may also bear some responsibility. Courts determine the percentage of fault attributable to each party. For example, if a court finds the defendant 70% at fault and the plaintiff 30% at fault, the plaintiff’s recoverable damages are reduced by 30%, meaning they receive only 70% of the total damages.
There are primarily two main systems of comparative fault in the United States: pure comparative fault and modified comparative fault. Additionally, it’s important to understand contributory negligence, which represents a different approach.
Pure Comparative Fault Explained
Under the pure comparative fault rule, a plaintiff can recover damages even if they were significantly negligent. The recovery is simply reduced by their percentage of fault. In jurisdictions following this rule, even if a plaintiff is found to be 99% at fault, they can still recover 1% of their damages. The key factor is that damages are directly proportional to the defendant’s degree of fault. States like California, Florida, and New York adhere to pure comparative fault.
Modified Comparative Fault: 50% and 51% Bar Rules
Modified comparative fault represents a middle ground. It prevents plaintiffs from recovering damages if their fault exceeds a certain threshold. There are two common variations:
50 Percent Bar Rule
In states with the 50 percent bar rule, a plaintiff is barred from recovering any damages if they are found to be 50% or more at fault. If the plaintiff’s fault is 49% or less, they can recover damages, reduced by their percentage of fault.
51 Percent Bar Rule
The 51 percent bar rule is slightly different. Under this rule, a plaintiff cannot recover damages if they are 51% or more at fault. This means a plaintiff can still recover damages if their fault is exactly 50%, but not if it’s 51% or higher. Modified comparative negligence, in either the 50% or 51% bar form, is the more prevalent system across the majority of states.
Comparative Fault vs. Contributory Negligence
It’s crucial to distinguish comparative fault from contributory negligence. Contributory negligence is a much stricter rule. In a jurisdiction that follows contributory negligence, if a plaintiff is found to be even 1% at fault for their injuries, they are barred from recovering any damages whatsoever. This “all-or-nothing” approach contrasts sharply with comparative fault, which seeks to apportion responsibility. Only a few jurisdictions, including Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia, still follow contributory negligence principles.
Comparative fault aims to provide a fairer outcome in negligence cases by ensuring that responsibility for damages is shared in proportion to each party’s contribution to the incident. This contrasts with the harsher outcome of contributory negligence, where even minor plaintiff fault can completely negate damage recovery.
