Christy Bieber has a JD from UCLA School of Law and began her career as a college instructor and textbook author. She has been writing full time for over a decade with a focus on making financial and legal topics understandable and fun. Her work has.
Christy Bieber, J.D. ContributorChristy Bieber has a JD from UCLA School of Law and began her career as a college instructor and textbook author. She has been writing full time for over a decade with a focus on making financial and legal topics understandable and fun. Her work has.
Written By Christy Bieber, J.D. ContributorChristy Bieber has a JD from UCLA School of Law and began her career as a college instructor and textbook author. She has been writing full time for over a decade with a focus on making financial and legal topics understandable and fun. Her work has.
Christy Bieber, J.D. ContributorChristy Bieber has a JD from UCLA School of Law and began her career as a college instructor and textbook author. She has been writing full time for over a decade with a focus on making financial and legal topics understandable and fun. Her work has.
ContributorAdam has resided at the intersection of legal and journalism for two decades. An award-winning journalist and legal strategist, he’s covered high-profile trials in Florida. After law school, Adam and spent two years clerking for a U.S. District Co.
Adam has resided at the intersection of legal and journalism for two decades. An award-winning journalist and legal strategist, he’s covered high-profile trials in Florida. After law school, Adam and spent two years clerking for a U.S. District Co.
Adam has resided at the intersection of legal and journalism for two decades. An award-winning journalist and legal strategist, he’s covered high-profile trials in Florida. After law school, Adam and spent two years clerking for a U.S. District Co.
Adam has resided at the intersection of legal and journalism for two decades. An award-winning journalist and legal strategist, he’s covered high-profile trials in Florida. After law school, Adam and spent two years clerking for a U.S. District Co.
Updated: Mar 8, 2023, 10:24am
Editorial Note: We earn a commission from partner links on Forbes Advisor. Commissions do not affect our editors' opinions or evaluations.
Getty
Comparative negligence is a partial defense in tort cases. If an accident victim wants to sue someone who harmed them, the defendant can claim comparative negligence to reduce the plaintiff’s recovery.
This guide to comparative negligence explains how it affects injury lawsuits and the compensation available to those who were harmed by the negligence or intentional wrongdoing of others.
When a person is hurt by someone else, the injured victim can file a personal injury claim. If the victim is able to prove that the defendant breached a legal duty and damaged them as a result, the victim can recover financial compensation for losses.
Defendants accused of wrongdoing can raise defenses, though. And comparative negligence is one of those defenses. Under the legal doctrine of comparative negligence, a victim who was partly responsible for the incident that led to harm can only recover part of their damages. And, in some cases, they cannot recover at all depending on how much of the blame lies with them.
It’s helpful to look at an example to understand how this works. If an accident victim suffered $100,000 in damages in an accident the defendant was 80% responsible for (and the victim was 20% responsible), the victim could pursue a claim and recover $80,000 (80% of the $100,000 in damages).
The doctrine of comparative negligence applies in the majority of states with the exception of Maryland, Virginia, Alabama, and North Carolina, which use contributory negligence rules.
When comparative negligence rules apply, victims can recover monetary damages from a defendant who shares the blame for harming them — but their compensation will be reduced based on their own contribution to the accident.
The specific rules on when a victim can pursue a claim will vary by state, as some apply pure comparative negligence rules and others apply modified comparative negligence rules. Here’s what this means:
An experienced personal injury attorney can provide insight into whether pure or modified comparative negligence rules apply in your state.
Contributory negligence was the rule traditionally applied in tort cases but many states changed it because of unfair outcomes.
When contributory negligence rules apply instead of comparative negligence, a victim who is even partly at fault for causing his or her own injuries is barred from pursuing a claim from compensation at all. This would mean a person who was 1% responsible for an accident would be barred from obtaining monetary damages from a defendant who was 99% to blame.
Comparative negligence is the alternative to contributory negligence used in most states, allowing a victim to seek restitution even if they are partially at fault..
If a plaintiff pursues a personal injury claim, the defendant can argue comparative negligence as a partial defense to liability. In order to prove comparative negligence, the defendant would need to demonstrate:
A comparative negligence defense can be raised in any injury claim if a defendant feels a victim was partly responsible for causing their own harm.
Examples of cases where comparative negligence defenses may be raised include:
Your state’s negligence law determines if and how much you may collect when filing an accident claim against the other party.
A pure comparative negligence law permits both drivers in an accident to seek compensation for damages. It allows this regardless of your share of the fault. That means you could file a claim even if you’re found to be 99% responsible for the accident. However, pure comparative negligence reduces your settlement by your degree of fault.
For example, if you are 99% responsible, your settlement amount is reduced by 99%.
In a nutshell, everyone is held responsible for their percentage of fault and can file a claim for the portion they aren’t culpable for with the other party’s insurance company.
Here are 12 states that have pure comparative negligence laws:
A modified comparative negligence law allows you to collect from the other driver but only if your degree of fault is under a certain threshold. While pure comparative negligence lets you make a claim if you’re up to 99% at fault, modified comparative does not.
There are two threshold rules used: a 50% rule and a 51% rule.
With a 50% threshold rule, you cannot collect if you’re 50% or more responsible. If your fault is equal to or greater than the other driver, you’re out of luck if you want to file a claim against the other driver’s insurance company. There are 10 states with modified comparative negligence 50% rule.
50% rule modified comparative negligence states:
A 51% threshold rule is similar, but you can still collect from the other party if you’re up to 50% at fault. It’s when you hit the 51% barrier that you no longer can seek compensation that way. There are 23 states with modified comparative negligence laws that follow the 51% rule.
51% rule modified comparative negligence states:
In personal injury cases, plaintiffs have the initial burden of proving the defendant should be held liable. They can demonstrate this by showing:
Once a plaintiff has met this burden, the defendant is presumed liable and will be required to pay compensation for losses — if the defendant cannot successfully present a defense.
Comparative negligence is one such defense. It can either reduce the amount the defendant must pay or prevent the plaintiff from recovering altogether if the plaintiff was more than 50% or 51% to blame for the accident in a modified comparative fault state.
Defendants who wish to raise the defense of comparative negligence must show:
It can be hard to establish the percentage of fault attributable to the plaintiff. An experienced attorney can provide assistance to both the plaintiff and defendant in presenting evidence that will resolve this issue.
Comparative negligence is a partial defense to personal injury liability. If a defendant is sued, the defendant can raise this defense by claiming the plaintiff was partly responsible for injuries. The plaintiff’s compensation is reduced by the percentage of fault they shares. In some states, plaintiffs who are at least 50% or 51% responsible for their own injuries will not be allowed to recover compensation for damages.
Comparative negligence and contributory negligence are both potential defenses in a personal injury claim. Which defense is available varies by state. In a small number of states, contributory negligence rules apply. Under these rules, if a plaintiff is even partly responsible for the injuries sustained, the plaintiff cannot pursue a case. Under comparative negligence rules, a plaintiff who is partly responsible for his or her own injuries can still recover compensation. However, the amount of damages is reduced based on the percentage of fault the plaintiff shares.
A defendant has the burden of proving comparative negligence. The defendant must show the plaintiff acted below the level of care a reasonable person would have shown and that these actions on the part of the plaintiff were a contributing factor to injuries the plaintiff sustained.
