I need to compare and contrast contributory negligence with comparative negligence.
Please check what I have so far and let me know what I may need to and or take a way etc thanks so much for your help
Both contributory and comparative negligence deals with the fact the the negligence of the defendant is not in doubt meaning that it has already proven by the plaintiff. The maain diffrence between the two is with comparative negliggence an attempt to conpensate the plintiff for some portion of their injury even if it is for a small amount, however contributory negligence is used to bar an injury award completely.
Please use a spell check to catch several misspelled words. Also -- the verb in your first sentence should be "deal" not "deals."
You may want to add to your answer with information from these articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_negligence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_negligence
Great start! Here's how you can refine and improve your explanation:
Both contributory negligence and comparative negligence concepts deal with situations where the negligence of the defendant is acknowledged and proven by the plaintiff. However, there are some important distinctions between the two.
1. Contributory negligence: This legal doctrine is used to bar an injury award completely. In other words, if the plaintiff is found to have contributed to their own injury, even to a small extent, they may be completely barred from recovering any damages. This means that if a court determines that the plaintiff is even slightly responsible for the accident or injury, they will not receive any compensation.
2. Comparative negligence: This legal doctrine is aimed at compensating the plaintiff for a portion of their injury, even if they are partially responsible for the accident or injury. There are two types of comparative negligence:
a. Pure comparative negligence: Under this rule, the plaintiff can recover damages even if they are mostly to blame for the accident. The amount of compensation they receive is reduced according to their level of fault. For example, if the plaintiff is 70% responsible for the accident, they may only be entitled to receive 30% of the total damages.
b. Modified comparative negligence: This rule varies by jurisdiction, but typically sets a threshold of responsibility beyond which the plaintiff is barred from recovering any damages. For example, if the threshold is set at 50%, the plaintiff cannot recover anything if they are found to be more than 50% responsible for the accident. However, if their responsibility is 50% or less, they can still receive compensation, but it will be reduced based on their level of fault.
In summary, while both contributory negligence and comparative negligence deal with defendant negligence being established, contributory negligence completely bars the plaintiff from recovering damages, whereas comparative negligence allows for recovery, either in full or in part depending on the jurisdiction and the degree of fault assigned.