Some defendants hide under contributory negligence to puncture plaintiffs’ claims. However, all must understand what this legal defense entails and how it plays out in cases.
This article explains the meaning of contributory negligence and its possible impact on your personal injury claim. The article also explores ways in which an injury attorney like those at Ostroff Godshall Injury and Accident Lawyers can help.
Understanding Contributory Negligence
In a personal injury case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant behaved negligently, which led to harm. In such a case, they should be liable for the losses.
Successfully proving a defendant’s negligence does not translate into automatic compensation; defendants can raise objections to liability. Contributory negligence is part of those objections in some jurisdictions.
Contributory negligence makes it impossible to hold a defendant liable because the plaintiff contributed to the incident. For instance, if you turned left at a signal but failed to put on your turn signal and a speeding driver hit you, both of you failed to behave reasonably. Hence, the two parties involved in this incident will share the blame.
The contributory negligence defense makes it almost impossible for plaintiffs to get compensation for harm. Thus, many states have abandoned this concept to embrace comparative negligence rules.
Contributory Negligence Doctrine
North Carolina, Maryland, Alabama, and Virginia are examples of the few states still using the contributory negligence concept.
Contributory negligence adopts a black-and-white rule: A plaintiff cannot hold a defendant liable if the former shares any responsibility for the injury that happened. It means a plaintiff cannot win a personal injury claim even if they are one percent responsible for the incident; you will go empty-handed if you are guilty in any way.
The Nexus Between Contributory and Comparative Negligence
Many states have adopted comparative negligence instead of cruel contributory negligence. However, we can further divide comparative negligence into two categories: pure comparative fault and modified comparative fault.
Pure comparative fault allows a victim to pursue a case even if the defendant has less than 50 percent guilt. For instance, a pedestrian who was 80 percent liable for an accident could pursue damages from the motorist with 20 percent blame.
However, modified comparative fault empowers a victim to only pursue compensation from a defendant with at least 50 or 51 percent blame for the injuries.
Hence, you can still receive compensation from a defendant under the doctrine of comparative negligence even if you were partly to blame for the harm. But the deciders will reduce your compensation based on the percentage of your guilt.
For instance, if a drunk driver hit a pedestrian who ignored the crosswalk, the driver may be 90 percent guilty, while the pedestrian was 10 percent at fault. If the pedestrian recorded $20,000 in damages, they could recover $18,000 from the motorist.
Elements of Contributory Negligence
A defendant who wants to hide under contributory negligence to avoid responsibility for a plaintiff’s harm must prove the following:
- The plaintiff had the role of acting to prevent injury
- The plaintiff was careless and did not act in a way that a logically reasonable individual would have in the same context
- This carelessness or negligence caused or contributed to the incident
Some states have adjusted the contributory negligence doctrine to avoid unfair decisions. For instance, a “last clear chance” rule permits a plaintiff to receive compensation from a defendant despite the plaintiff’s negligence under the following conditions:
- The defendant was the last person in the mishap and could have stopped the harm from happening
- The defendant could have adopted reasonable means to prevent the harm
- The defendant failed to prevent it
For instance, a plaintiff stopped their motorcycle in the middle of the road to answer a call, and the defendant hit them. Although the plaintiff was negligent in stopping there, the defendant could have avoided hitting him. It shows they were both negligent. The defendant blew off the “last clear chance” they had to prevent the accident.
Types of Contributory Negligence
Typical cases where a defendant could adopt a contributory negligence defense include auto accidents, wrongful death, dog bites, truck accidents, motorcycle accidents, slips and falls, bicycle crashes, and pedestrian accidents.
Contributory Negligence Defenses in Personal Injury Matters
You must establish negligence in a tort case because a plaintiff must always show that a defendant was negligent and caused the injuries for which the plaintiff is seeking compensation. Also, a defendant can claim a plaintiff was negligent to dodge liability.
Conventionally, you demonstrate negligence by proving that an individual’s behavior fell short of the standard of care that a prudent person would have exhibited in the same context. The person is genuinely negligent if a logically prudent individual would have anticipated the potential for harm and acted differently.
Sometimes, it is possible to prove negligence in other ways. For instance, negligence per se is a concept under which the authorities consider a particular action negligent if it breaches a regulation or statute.
It is unlawful for a motorist to drive a vehicle under impaired conditions. Negligence per se doctrine does not need additional evidence to prove negligence if a motorist was drunk or under the influence of something else when they caused an accident.
How to Prove Negligence in Personal Injury Matters?
The plaintiff is burdened to prove the incident occurred in a personal injury matter. They would also prove that the defendant was negligent and the negligence led to their (the plaintiff’s) harm. A defendant can use contributory negligence as a defense to water down the plaintiff’s claims.
On the other hand, the defense must prove the plaintiff failed to act logically under the circumstances which contributed to the occurrence of the accident. This defense is known as the “reasonable person standard.”
The defendant must also convince the jury what a hypothetical individual who is an average community member, showing reasonable care, would do in a similar context. This standard is silent about a plaintiff’s abilities, awareness, and knowledge. The jury holds the final decision on the argument; they would determine if the plaintiff acted reasonably in the situation.
If the defense successfully proves the plaintiff contributed to the harm, the latter cannot receive any compensation in a contributory negligence state.
Conclusion
If contributory negligence could be an issue in a personal injury matter, speaking with a lawyer is essential. A reputable and passionate personal injury attorney understands negligence rules and the possible outcome of an injury claim. They will protect your fundamental rights and ensure the defense does not exploit loopholes to puncture your claim.
