Contributory and Comparative Negligence: What’s the Difference?

If you’ve recently been involved in a personal injury case, you may have heard the terms “contributory” and “comparative” negligence. You may wonder exactly what these are, how they differ from each other, and what impact they may have on your case.

To better understand the difference between contributory and comparative negligence, let’s use an example of a common incident that frequently results in personal injury cases: a car accident. In this particular example, let’s say that the first driver, driver “A,” is speeding excessively in snowy conditions, neglects to stop in time, and rear-ends driver “B” in front of him. The result is that both drivers sustain injuries. Driver “A” breaks his arm, while driver “B” sustains neck and back injuries.

In this situation, we can assume that driver “A” was negligent. He was, after all, speeding in difficult driving conditions, and was not able to stop in time to avoid the vehicle in front of him. However, depending upon the state the suit occurs in, the lawyer who represents the defendant will use the concepts of either “contributory” or “comparative” negligence to reduce the defendant’s liability.

Contributory Negligence

Contributory negligence is a concept used to show how a person’s own actions contributed toward their own injuries. Under this law, if the plaintiff were responsible for any of his or her injuries, no recovery of damages would be awarded, even if the other driver were clearly negligent. As an example, let’s say that driver “B” had faulty brake lights, making it difficult for driver “A” to realize immediately that the car in front had stopped. If it were determined that driver “B” contributed to his or her own injuries, even slightly, driver “A” would not be liable, even though he or she was grossly negligent. Only four states and the District of Columbia use contributory negligence in personal injury cases.

Comparative Negligence

Comparative negligence compares the actions and behaviors of both parties involved, in an effort to show how each contributed to the accident. When it is shown that a plaintiff is responsible, to some degree, for the accident, it reduces the amount of damages awarded proportionally.

To better understand this, let’s go back to our original example and insert more details. We already know that driver “A” was speeding and rear-ended driver “B.” And we know that driver “B” had faulty brake lights, making it difficult for driver “A” to recognize that driver “B” had stopped.

In this situation, both drivers are negligent to some degree. So what’s next? A jury will carefully review the details of the accident, to determine the percentage to which each driver is responsible.

Effect of Comparative Negligence on Damages

Once the jury comes up with percentages of fault for each driver, those percentages will have a direct impact on the amount of damages awarded.

To further illustrate, let’s say that the jury determines that driver “A” was 70 percent responsible for the accident, but due to the faulty brake lights, driver “B” was 30 percent responsible. Any damages awarded to driver “B” would be reduced by 30 percent.

The laws related to comparative negligence vary from state to state. Currently, 13 states use what is called the “pure comparative fault rule,” which states that a plaintiff can recover damages regardless of the percentage of his or her responsibility, but the recovery will be reduced by the damages the plaintiff was responsible for. In theory, a driver could be responsible for 99 percent of damages, and could still recover one percent.

Most states use something called the “modified comparative fault” system, which falls somewhere in between contributory negligence and pure comparative fault. Similar to the pure comparative fault system, damages are reduced based on the percentage of fault assigned to the plaintiff. However, if the plaintiff’s negligence is determined to be above a certain percentage - typically 50 or 51 percent, depending upon the state - no recovery is allowed.

If you’ve recently been in an automobile accident, you are most likely faced with unexpected and expensive medical bills. Make sure you get the maximum recovery by aligning yourself with a knowledgeable, experienced New Jersey car accident lawyer.

Rick Console is a New Jersey personal injury attorney who has been protecting and representing the rights of injury victims for 15 years. In addition to representing those injured in motor vehicle accidents, he has successfully handled thousands of cases related to slips and falls, premise liability, worksite injuries, homeowner’s claims, dog bites, and medical malpractice. Console is licensed to practice in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and has offices in both Mt. Laurel, New Jersey, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.