Pure Comparative Negligence

Pure comparative negligence is a legal doctrine that allows a plaintiff to recover damages even if they are partially at fault for the accident. Under this doctrine, the plaintiff's damages are reduced by their percentage of fault. For example, if a plaintiff is 20% at fault for an accident and the defendant is 80% at fault, the plaintiff can recover 80% of their damages.

Pure comparative negligence is used in many states. It is also the default rule in federal court.

Advantages of Pure Comparative Negligence

There are several advantages to pure comparative negligence. First, it is more fair to plaintiffs than other negligence systems. Under contributory negligence, for example, a plaintiff who is even slightly at fault is barred from recovering any damages. This can be unfair, especially in cases where the plaintiff's negligence is relatively minor.

Second, pure comparative negligence encourages people to take precautions to avoid accidents. If plaintiffs know that they can still recover damages even if they are partially at fault, they are more likely to take steps to protect themselves.

Disadvantages of Pure Comparative Negligence

There are also some disadvantages to pure comparative negligence. First, it can be difficult to determine who is at fault in an accident. This can lead to lengthy and expensive litigation.

Second, pure comparative negligence can discourage people from taking precautions to avoid accidents. If plaintiffs know that they can still recover damages even if they are partially at fault, they may be less likely to take steps to protect themselves.

Conclusion

Pure comparative negligence is a legal doctrine that has both advantages and disadvantages. It is important to weigh these factors carefully before deciding whether to file a lawsuit under this doctrine. If you have been injured in an accident, you should speak with an attorney to discuss your legal options.