compare and contrast contributory negligence with comparative negligence.
http://www.google.com/webhp?rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS379US379&sourceid=chrome-instant&ix=sea&ie=UTF-8&ion=1#hl=en&rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS379US379&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=contributory%20negligence%20v.%20comparative%20negligence&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&gs_l=&pbx=1&fp=89c23c73c73127de&ix=sea&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1334&bih=613
Read widely and take good notes.
Thank you that helps a lot.
You're very welcome.
Contributory negligence and comparative negligence are both legal concepts that come into play in situations where multiple parties may be responsible for causing an injury or damage. While they share similarities, there are distinct differences between the two.
1. Contributory Negligence:
Contributory negligence is a legal doctrine that follows a strict standard. Under this doctrine, if the injured party is found to have contributed in any way, even minimally, to their own injury or damage, they may be completely barred from recovering any compensation from the other party. This means that if a plaintiff is deemed even 1% at fault, they will be unable to obtain any compensation.
Example: Imagine a scenario where a pedestrian is crossing the road without using a designated crosswalk and gets hit by a speeding car. If the court determines that the pedestrian's actions played any role in causing the accident, they will be completely barred from any recovery, regardless of the level of fault on the part of the driver.
2. Comparative Negligence:
Comparative negligence is a more flexible legal concept that allows for a fairer distribution of responsibility and compensation. It recognizes that more than one party can be at fault for an injury or damage, and allocates damages based on the degree of fault of each party involved.
There are two types of comparative negligence:
a) Pure Comparative Negligence: In this system, the injured party can recover damages even if they are mostly at fault. The amount of compensation they receive will be reduced in proportion to their level of fault. For example, if they were determined to be 70% at fault, they will only be able to recover 30% of the damages.
b) Modified Comparative Negligence: This system includes a threshold or "50% rule." If the injured party is found to be equally or more at fault than the other party, they are completely barred from recovery. However, if they are determined to be less at fault, they can still seek compensation. If the injured party's fault does not exceed the threshold (usually set at 50%), their damages will be reduced according to their level of fault.
Example: Consider a case where a driver and a pedestrian are involved in an accident. If the court decides that the driver was 80% at fault and the pedestrian 20% at fault, in a pure comparative negligence system, the pedestrian would be entitled to 20% of the damages. However, in a modified system with a 50% threshold, if the pedestrian is deemed 50% or less at fault, they can recover damages, otherwise, they would be barred.
To determine whether a jurisdiction follows contributory negligence or comparative negligence, you would need to refer to the specific laws and regulations in that jurisdiction, as different regions may have different legal standards.