Comparative negligence , or the negligence of non-absolute contributions outside the United States, is a partial legal defense that reduces the amount of damages that the claimant can recover in claims based on negligence, based on the extent to which the plaintiff's own negligence caused injury. When the defense is affirmed, the fact-solver, usually a juror, must decide the extent to which the plaintiff's negligence and the combined negligence of all other related actors all cause the plaintiff's damage. This is a modification of the doctrine of a contributory omission that prohibits the recovery by the plaintiff whose negligence contributes even minimal to cause damage.
Video Comparative negligence
Description
Before the late 1960s, only a few countries adopted this system. When comparative omissions are adopted, three major versions are used. The former is called "pure" comparative negligence. A plaintiff who is 90% to blame for an accident can recover 10% of his loss. (Of course, the defendant who suffered injuries in such a case could ward off the claim and recover 90% of the loss from the other party.)
The second and third versions are integrated into what is called "modified" comparative negligence. One variant allows the plaintiff to recover "only" if the plaintiff's negligence is "no greater than" the defendant (the plaintiff's negligence should not exceed 50% of joint negligence of the parties).
Other variants allow plaintiffs to recover "only if" the plaintiff's negligence is "not as big" as the defendant (the plaintiff's negligence must be less than 50% of the combined negligence). The seemingly small difference between the two modifications of comparative negligence is considered by lawyers who handle such cases to be significant, because the jury who usually sets the error rate is far less willing to indemnify the plaintiffs who are also guilty. less guilty than the defendant.
Maps Comparative negligence
The docs of contributory negligence
Some states, though, still use the doctrine of negligence of contributions to evaluate negligence in the lawsuit. For example, Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia continue to use contributory negligence.
Neither comparative negligence nor contributory negligence should be misconstrued by joint responsibility and some, which generally hold each of the two or more defendants responsible for all damages suffered by the plaintiff. For practical reasons, plaintiffs who face the defense of comparative negligence may wish to join all the potentially guilty defendants in their actions because the plaintiff's negligence will be offset by the combined negligence of all the defendants in dividend even if the claimant may not be able to obtain compensation from some of they: for example, if a bankrupt individual and a large company are equally negligent in causing the plaintiff's loss.
See also
- Uniform Comparison Failure Act
- Li v. Yellow Cab Co. from California
- Hoffman v. Jones
- Comparative responsibility
References
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments