Pure comparative negligence is a legal principle used in tort law to determine the amount of damages a plaintiff can recover in a negligence-based claim. It allows a plaintiff to recover damages even if they were partially at fault for the accident. The amount of damages awarded is directly proportional to the percentage of fault assigned to the defendant.
How Pure Comparative Negligence Works
In a pure comparative negligence system, the court assigns a percentage of fault to each party involved in the accident. For example, if a plaintiff is found to be 30% at fault and the defendant is 70% at fault, the plaintiff can recover 70% of their damages. Even if the plaintiff is found to be 99% at fault, they can still recover 1% of their damages from the defendant. This system emphasizes apportioning responsibility and ensuring that each party bears the financial burden proportionate to their degree of fault.
Illustrative representation of comparative negligence – assigning fault proportionally.
Pure Comparative Negligence vs. Other Negligence Rules
Pure comparative negligence contrasts with other negligence rules, namely modified comparative negligence and contributory negligence.
Modified Comparative Negligence
Modified comparative negligence, practiced in the majority of U.S. states, sets a threshold for recovery. There are two common thresholds: the “50% bar rule” and the “51% bar rule.” Under the 50% bar rule, a plaintiff can only recover damages if their fault is 49% or less. With the 51% bar rule, recovery is barred if the plaintiff is 50% or more at fault.
Contributory Negligence
Contributory negligence, the strictest rule, completely bars a plaintiff from recovering any damages if they are found even slightly at fault for the accident. Even 1% of fault on the plaintiff’s part can prevent any recovery. Only a few jurisdictions still use this rule. The fundamental difference between these systems highlights the varying approaches to assigning responsibility and compensating injured parties in negligence cases.
States that Apply Pure Comparative Negligence
A significant number of states, nearly one-third, adhere to the principle of pure comparative negligence. This includes populous states like California, Florida, and New York, impacting a large portion of the US population. Each state’s specific application of the rule might have nuanced differences, but the core principle of proportional recovery remains consistent.
Conclusion
Pure comparative negligence provides a framework for allocating responsibility and damages in negligence cases based on the proportionate fault of each party. While it allows plaintiffs to recover damages even if partially at fault, the amount recoverable is directly reduced by their percentage of negligence. This system differs significantly from modified comparative and contributory negligence rules, highlighting the variations in legal approaches to negligence across jurisdictions. Understanding these differences is crucial for anyone involved in a negligence claim.
