Compare and contrast contributory negligence with comparative negligence.
If either contributory or comparative negligence doesn't exist anymore how would you be able to compare and contrast them?
To compare and contrast contributory negligence with comparative negligence, let's first understand what each term means:
1. Contributory Negligence: Contributory negligence is a legal doctrine that follows a "all-or-nothing" approach. In jurisdictions that follow this doctrine, if the plaintiff (injured party) is found to have contributed to their own injury in any way, they are completely barred from recovering any damages from the defendant (at-fault party). In other words, even if the plaintiff is only 1% responsible for the accident, they cannot recover any compensation.
2. Comparative Negligence: Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine that allows for a more balanced allocation of fault and damages. Under this doctrine, both the plaintiff and the defendant can be assigned a percentage of fault for the accident. The damages awarded to the plaintiff are then reduced by their assigned percentage of fault. This means that even if the plaintiff is partially responsible for the accident, they can still recover damages, albeit reduced.
Now, let's compare and contrast these two concepts:
1. Legal Approach: Contributory negligence follows a strict "all-or-nothing" approach, where the plaintiff cannot recover any damages if they are even partially responsible. On the other hand, comparative negligence takes a more proportional approach, allowing the plaintiff to recover damages based on their percentage of fault.
2. Compensation: Under contributory negligence, if the plaintiff is found to have contributed in any way to their own injury, they are completely barred from receiving any compensation. In contrast, under comparative negligence, the plaintiff can still recover damages, but the amount will be reduced proportionally based on their assigned percentage of fault.
3. Jurisdiction: Contributory negligence is a less common doctrine and is only followed by a few jurisdictions, such as Alabama, Maryland, Virginia, and others. Comparative negligence, on the other hand, is widely accepted and followed by most jurisdictions in some form.
To conclude, the key difference between contributory negligence and comparative negligence lies in the legal approach and the ability to recover damages. Contributory negligence adopts an "all-or-nothing" approach, while comparative negligence allows for a more proportional distribution of fault and damages.