Torts-Comparative and Contributory Negligence
Different states have different ways of how they deal with negligence claims. Some of them acknowledge the concept of comparative negligence, while other states are known as contributory negligence jurisdictions. In a comparative negligence jurisdiction, the negligence may be compared between the parties. For instance, going back to the red light example, if you happened to be intoxicated and laying in the middle of the intersection when you were struck, then there obviously would be some negligence on your part. The jury would be called upon to compare the different levels of negligence.
In that example, the jury might conclude that the driver was 50% negligent and you were also 50% negligent. If the jury then determined that your total damages were $100,000, you would only receive $50,000, because you were 50% negligent.
In a contributory negligence jurisdiction there is no comparison of negligence. This means that if you were negligent by 1%, and that negligence was a cause of your damage, then your claim is barred and you receive nothing. Contributory negligence is a principle derived from the common law that is still recognized in some states. It is indeed a very harsh principle of law and in many instances is unfair to people who are probably entitled to recover something for their damages, but may not be entitled to 100% compensation.
