comparative negligence


Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
Related to comparative negligence: contributory negligence, Assumption of risk

comparative negligence

A legal theory in some states that evaluates the negligence of a wrongdoer against any negligence of the injured party that contributed to its injuries,and then assigns a pro rata responsibility for the harm suffered.

Example: If a property owner allows a loose step to remain unrepaired, and a guest loses his or her balance and falls, the property owner has been negligent. If, however, the guest was intoxicated, a jury might decide the guest was 25 percent responsible for the injuries. In such a case, the jury will calculate a dollar value for the injury and associated expenses and will then reduce it by 25 percent in order to arrive at an award.

Contrast with contributory negligence, which denies any award at all if the injured party was at all negligent under the circumstances.

Mentioned in ?
References in periodicals archive ?
Fifth and finally, once this comment lays bare the conceptual and practical difficulties of the slight-gross rule, this comment will offer several alternatives to South Dakota's current formulation and recommend the South Dakota Legislature adopt a new comparative negligence statute (24) After recommending a change, this article will discuss and overcome the greatest hurdle to adopting a new rule: the myth of increased insurance rates and the other expenses.
In 1974, the Kansas legislature officially replaced contributory negligence with comparative negligence with the passage of section 60-25 8a.
were not barred from recovery based on their participation, although their conduct might constitute comparative negligence that would reduce their recovery.
the established admiralty doctrine of comparative negligence and in
48) The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed this decision, finding that exemplary damages awards could not be reduced by the plaintiffs comparative negligence (49) The state supreme court, sitting en banc, considered this precise issue and reversed the court of appeals' ruling.
Most courts will characterize malpractice claims as asserting a negligence claim, unless the defendant has undertaken to achieve a specific result; accordingly, most claims are subject to the comparative negligence defense.
It rests on the recognition that, since mistakes and lapses of attention are inevitable in day-to-day life, allowing the contributory negligence defense, or its comparative negligence companion, would lead to decreased damages claims in routine cases.
In Andrews, the Nevada Supreme Court held that the comparative negligence of the plaintiff was not admissible in enhanced injury cases.
Part IV proposes that these cases could be more equitably resolved by employing a different doctrine: that of comparative negligence, in which a jury is permitted to apportion fault among the parties based on their findings of fact, and looks at the ways in which assumption of risk has already been all but eliminated as a separate doctrine by New York State lawmakers.
This Note argues that while the majority rule makes sense within contributory negligence jurisdictions, its reasoning breaks down when it is applied in comparative negligence regimes.
In a few jurisdictions (five at last count), strict contributory rather than comparative negligence still remains the law.
In a few jurisdictions, strict contributory rather than comparative negligence still remains the law.

Full browser ?