Contributory VS Comparative Negligence: The Difference

What You Need to Know About Comparative VS Contributory Negligence

When facing the aftermath of accidents or injuries, it is important to know the difference between contributory and comparative negligence in order to collect damages. Here’s what you need to know about the distinctions between comparative vs contributory negligence.

The main difference between contributory and comparative negligence is their bar level, or the percentage of blame that prevents a plaintiff from collecting damages after an accident. Contributory negligence has a bar level of 1%, while comparative negligence varies. While contributory negligence is fairly straightforward, comparative negligence has a few variations that require extra examination.

Contributory Negligence

When applied, contributory negligence prevents parties that are even slightly responsible for an accident or injury from receiving damages. Under contributory negligence, the bar level can be considered 1%.

An example of contributory negligence is as follows: Individual A crosses the street without looking for oncoming traffic and individual B hits them with their car because they were distracted while driving. Individual A would not be able to collect damages because they were partially negligent and responsible for the accident. Even if individual B is more at fault for the incident, contributory negligence would hold that individual A still may not receive damages.
States that practice contributory negligence are:

AL
MD
NC
VA
The District of Columbia

Comparative Negligence

Comparative negligence, unlike contributory negligence, allows multiple parties to share the blame for an accident and holds that damages should be collected based on the percentage of fault of each party. There are three types of comparative negligence: pure, modified, and slight-gross.

Pure Comparative Negligence

Pure comparative negligence maintains that each individual in an accident should be burdened with only their proportion of costs. In other words, parties should only collect the proportion of damages that they did not cause.

For example, a plaintiff was rewarded $1,000 in damages and was found, either by a judge or jury, to have been responsible for 25% of those damages. Pure comparative negligence would hold that the plaintiff should actually be rewarded only $750 to account for 25% of the responsibility.

States that practice pure comparative negligence are:

Modified Comparative Negligence

Modified Comparative Negligence is the most common form of comparative negligence, with more than half of states following its principle. Two types of rules branch off of modified comparative negligence: the 50% bar rule and the 51% bar rule.

The 50% Bar Rule

Modified comparative negligence’s 50% bar rule states that if an individual is more than 50% at fault for an accident, they are prohibited from collecting damages for their own injuries or harm. Individuals who are equally or mostly responsible for the accident are barred. If they are less than 50% responsible, then they can collect damages for their injuries with the percentage they are at fault subtracted from the total.
States that use the 50% bar rule are:

The 51% Bar Rule

Modified comparative negligence’s 51% bar rule states that if an individual is more than 51% at fault for an accident, they are prohibited from collecting damages for their own injuries or harm. This means that, unlike the 50% bar rule, an individual must be mostly responsible for the accident, or at least more at fault than any other party, in order to be barred.

Slight-Gross Comparative Negligence

Slight-Gross Comparative Negligence, which is only used in one state, maintains that in order to receive damages for an injury post-accident, an individual’s liability must be slight when compared to the other parties’ contributions. What is considered “slight” is determined on a case-by-case basis. The only state that uses slight-gross comparative negligence is SD.

FAQs for the Differences Between Contributory and Comparative Negligence

How does the “math” for comparative negligence work?

Comparative negligence argues that individuals should only receive compensation for damages that they were not responsible for. So, if an individual faced $1,000 in damages but was responsible for 25% of the accident, then under comparative negligence, they should receive $1000 – 25% of $1000 = $750

How do I know if my case will use the 50% bar rule or the 51% bar rule?

While the states that use the 50% and 51% bar rules are listed in the article above, it can still be difficult to know which rule will be used, especially if the accident crosses state lines. An individual confused about the jurisdiction of their case should consider consulting their attorney for more information.

Can I control whether my case uses contributory or comparative negligence?

While attorneys may be able to argue whether contributory or comparative negligence should be used in a specific case, state jurisdictions usually determine which type of negligence will be used when coming to a decision.

Contact Us

If you or a loved one would like to learn more about Contributory vs Comparative Negligence, get your free consultation with one of our most qualified attorneys today!