Comparative negligence is a tort doctrine that reduces recovery in some cases where the victim’s actions contributed to the accident. In the US, victims can sue injurers for compensation, but if the victim is partially responsible, they can only recover part of the damages. This replaced contributory negligence, which prevented recovery altogether if the victim contributed to the damage. The jury determines the percentage of responsibility and damages suffered by the victim.
Comparative negligence is the commonly applied tort doctrine when the victim’s actions contributed in part to the accident that caused the injury. In the United States, a person can sue another person whose negligent or willful actions have caused injury by filing a lawsuit. The doctrine of comparative negligence reduces recovery in some torts.
When someone intentionally or negligently injures a victim, the victim is entitled to compensation for damages that make them “whole” again. These damages include medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other similar damages. To recover these damages, the victim sues the injurer for a tort, which is a civil suit.
Sometimes, however, the victim contributes to causing his own injury. For example, if a person is driving a car and not paying attention, she could be run over by another person who is not paying attention. The person who hit it may be primarily at fault, but the victim may also have played a role in causing the accident.
Comparative negligence allows the victim to recover part of his damages, if he is only partially responsible for having contributed to his own damage. Comparative negligence has replaced contributory negligence as the standard in most jurisdictions in the United States. Contributory negligence was long the rule and precluded recovery altogether if the victim contributed to the cause of the damage.
In the case of contributory negligence, if a person was driving a vehicle negligently when struck, they would have been completely excluded from recovery. This means that even if the other driver was responsible for 99 percent of the accident, the victim would be prevented from recovering because one percent of the fault was hers. This doctrine fell out of favor and was replaced by relative neglect.
In the case of comparative negligence, the jury determines the damages suffered by the victim. The jury also determines the percentage of responsibility the victim must bear. For example, the jury may find that the victim is responsible for 45 percent of their injuries.
The damage that the defendant must pay to the victim is therefore determined by both the determination of damages and the determination of liability. For example, a jury may rule that a victim of an automobile accident is entitled to $100,000 in damages. The jury can also rule that the same victim is 50% responsible for his or her injuries. Thus, the victim is entitled to 50 percent of the $100,000 or $50,000 in damages.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
