Negligence: Differences Between States

Pure comparative negligence is a legal doctrine used in tort law to allocate damages between parties involved in an accident or injury based on their respective degrees of fault. Under pure comparative negligence, each party's recovery of damages is reduced in proportion to their percentage of fault, regardless of how significant or minor that fault may be.

Here's how it works:

• Assessment of Fault: After an accident or injury, a determination is made regarding the fault of each party involved. This assessment is typically based on evidence such as witness statements, police reports, and expert testimony.
• Percentage of Fault: Each party's percentage of fault is then calculated based on the degree to which their actions or negligence contributed to the accident or injury.
• Damages Allocation: The total damages awarded to the injured party are then reduced by their percentage of fault. For example, if the injured party is found to be 20% at fault and the total damages are $100,000, they would be entitled to recover $80,000 (i.e., $100,000 minus 20%).
• Comparative Analysis: This process allows for a comparative analysis of fault, ensuring that parties are held accountable for their contribution to the accident or injury.

Pure comparative negligence is used in several jurisdictions across the United States. It differs from other forms of comparative negligence, such as modified comparative negligence, which may limit recovery if the injured party's fault exceeds a certain threshold. In pure comparative negligence systems, even if the injured party is predominantly at fault, they can still recover damages, albeit reduced by their percentage of fault.

Modified comparative negligence is a legal doctrine used in tort law to allocate damages between parties involved in an accident or injury based on their respective degrees of fault, with some limitations. Unlike pure comparative negligence, which allows recovery even if a party is predominantly at fault, modified comparative negligence imposes restrictions on recovery based on the injured party's level of fault.

There are two main variations of modified comparative negligence:

• 50% Bar Rule: Under this rule, an injured party cannot recover damages if they are found to be 50% or more at fault for the accident or injury. If the injured party's fault is determined to be 49% or less, they can still recover damages, but their recovery is reduced in proportion to their percentage of fault.
• For example, if the injured party is found to be 30% at fault and the total damages are $100,000, they would be entitled to recover $70,000 (i.e., $100,000 minus 30%).

• 51% Bar Rule: This rule is similar to the 50% bar rule, but it imposes a stricter threshold. Under the 51% bar rule, an injured party cannot recover damages if they are found to be 51% or more at fault for the accident or injury. If their fault is determined to be 50% or less, they can still recover damages, albeit reduced in proportion to their percentage of fault.
• For example, if the injured party is found to be 40% at fault and the total damages are $100,000, they would be entitled to recover $60,000 (i.e., $100,000 minus 40%).

Modified comparative negligence is used in various jurisdictions across the United States. It aims to strike a balance between compensating injured parties and holding them accountable for their own negligence. The specific rules and thresholds may vary by state.