Contributory Negligence and Comparative Negligence

Are There Valid Defenses To Negligence?

Negligence can turn any moment into a catastrophe. Just a small mistake like speeding through a yellow light or ignoring safety rules at work is enough. These small steps of negligence can lead to serious injuries or you end up paying a hefty fee of costly legal battles. In “what if” situations when the blame is not clear, and you are into confusion you may need help. Defenses like assumption of risk, contributory negligence, and comparative negligence can shift the outcome, reducing or even eliminating liability. In the complex world of personal injury law, understanding these defenses could mean the difference between full compensation and walking away with nothing.

Negligence can happen in many situations, like a car accident where one driver fails to follow the rules, such as speeding or texting while driving. If negligence is involved, the person responsible may have to pay for any injuries caused. However, there are defenses that can reduce or eliminate their liability. These defenses can help lower or deny any compensation.

• Assumption of risk: The injured person knew about and accepted the risk of the activity.
• Contributory negligence: The injured person’s own actions contributed to the injury, possibly preventing compensation.
• Comparative negligence: The injured person’s fault reduces the compensation they can receive based on the percentage of their fault.

Assumption of Risk

Assumption of risk can be used when the injured party was aware of and accepted the risk involved in the activity that caused the injury. An example of this would be willing participation in an extreme sport, perhaps a contact sport, fully aware of the possibilities of being injured.

Contributory negligence

Contributory negligence can be used to deny the plaintiff any recovery at all if he is found to be even 1% at fault. This means that if you bring a negligence claim against someone, but are found to have been negligent yourself, then you may be barred from gaining compensation through a lawsuit.

An example of this would be if a welding torch malfunctions in a factory and the worker using it burns his face, however, the worker in question did not wear his mark before using the torch. Had the worker worn the mask, the injury could have been avoided, therefore his own negligence contributed to the injury and he may be barred from recovery.

Comparative negligence

Comparative negligence, similar to contributory negligence, comes into play when the injured party’s actions were also negligent and the injury may have been prevented if they had taken due care. Unlike contributory negligence however, comparative negligence does not fully bar the injured party from recovery but simply reduces the amount of recovery by the percentage of fault.

Let’s assume that in the example above, after bringing the case to trial, the factory worker’s recovery is assessed at $100K; however, the worker was found to bear 20% negligence. In a comparative negligence state, the factory worker’s recovery would be lessened by the percentage of his own negligence and he may only recover 80% of the award. Majority of the states, California included, have adopted the rule of comparative negligence.

Takeaways on Defenses in Negligence Claims

Negligence can result in serious injuries or expensive legal battles, but defenses like assumption of risk, contributory negligence, and comparative negligence can reduce or remove liability. Assumption of risk happens when the injured person knowingly accepts the risk of an activity. Contributory negligence can prevent compensation if the injured person is even a little at fault. Comparative negligence reduces the amount of compensation based on the injured person’s share of fault. Knowing these defenses is important in personal injury cases to help determine fair compensation.

For a free consultation with an experienced Los Angeles lawyer, contact the Law Offices of Eslamboly Hakim. We connect victims with doctors, even without insurance. Understanding defenses like assumption of risk, contributory negligence, and comparative negligence is crucial. These defenses can impact compensation by reducing or barring recovery based on the injured person’s fault.