“Comparative negligence” comes into play when both parties to an accident are partially at fault. For instance, suppose you are driving down the street ten miles above the posted speed limit. You are approaching an intersection and a driver makes an unsafe left turn in front of you, resulting in a collision. In that situation, since both of you were somewhat at fault, it would be unfair to make the driver who made the unsafe left turn pay for all of your personal injuries and property damage. The other driver is guilty of negligence (carelessness) in failing to wait for you to pass him or her. But you were also guilty of negligence for exceeding the speed limit. Because your negligence was a contributing factor to the accident, if you bring a lawsuit against the other driver, your own negligence will reduce the amount of your recovery.
This doctrine is called “comparative negligence” because the amount of your fault is compared to that of the other party’s in determining the amount of monetary damages you are entitled to receive. For instance, if a jury determined that the driver who made the unsafe lane change was 75% at fault and you were 25% at fault, your “comparative negligence” would reduce your recover by 25%. So instead of receiving, say, $100,000, your comparative negligence would reduce your award by 25%, so that you would receive on $75,000, which represents the 75% the other driver was at fault for causing the accident.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
