Jump to content

Talk:Contributory negligence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mike Teflon (talk | contribs) at 01:56, 26 August 2006 (Response to Ten of Spades). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ambiguity

I've removed the following text. It is ambiguous (to me) as I cannot tell which "this doctrine" is (contributory negligence or comparative negligence). I've tried to edit the article to make clearer some of the development. Is there a restatement on this? And what effect has it had? Francis Davey 9 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)

The exact application of this doctrine varies from one jurisdiction to another. Most jurisdictions have abolished the doctrine altogether, instead adopting a comparative negligence standard that simply reduces the damages to be awarded by an amount reflecting the degree to which the plaintiff's negligence contributed to the injury.

U.S. states that follow this doctrine are Alabama, North Carolina, Maryland and Virginia. The District of Columbia also uses this doctrine as well.

I suggest this link for Maryland: http://www.millerandzois.com/Contributory-Negligence-Maryland.html I am posting links from Miller & Zois which, granted, is a commerical site. But it is also the leading site on the Internet for legal education for trial lawyers - 80% of the content is focused on this direction. Please actually check out the site. The link I propose is to Maryland's contributory negligence law as a link under Maryland. This is not duplicative because it flushes out actual Maryland law. There is no promotional aspect to it, this all a part of a vast educational site. Please review the site and the content of this suggested link. Please comment pro or con and I will be glad to address it.Mike Teflon 00:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that – educational though parts of it may be – the driving purpose of the Miller & Zois site is definitely promotional. Every 'educational' page is festooned with links to push traffic to the commercial portions of the site. (The large banner header with M&Z's name, slogan, and toll-free number; the large links across the top of each 'article' for medical malpractice, auto, truck, and motorcycle accident lawyers; the broad left-side navbar repeating the lawyer links and information about the firm; the scrolling testimonials at the bottom of the navigation links; the company name and promotional phrase again at the bottom of the article panel....) Let's call a spade a spade, shall we? There's a reason why links have been added to articles like slipped disc, magnetic resonance imaging, medical malpractice.
That said, some of the M&Z content is informative despite its heavily promotional wrapper. The question in such cases is whether the 'added value' to Wikipedia provided by that content is worth the traffic (and improvement in Google PageRank) that we'll be giving to M&Z.
In this particular article, I don't believe so. Our article is sufficiently informative (in combination with last clear chance) on the topic. The M&Z page adds a few Maryland-specific dates, and a healthy dose of polemic:
The contributory negligence standard we use in Maryland is more harsh to injury victims and creates real challenges for Maryland personal injury lawyers seeks[[sic]] justice for their clients.
So--the added value isn't worth the advertising. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is a statement of fact advertisting? While I agree polemic is a fancy word and that this is an appropriate forum for you to showoff, no one disagrees the harshness of the contributory negligence rule creates challenges for injury lawyers seeking justice. When I say no one, and I mean no one, disagrees with this assesment, not the most ardent supports of the contributory negligence rule. Moreover, I'm a law professor. I get paid to teach. Does this destroy the value of the contribution? Of course not. And it does not on here, either. I appreciate that you try to addresss these issues in the ends on what you believe to be the merits. And while I disagree with your conclusion, I do not disrespect the analysis. All of the "calling a spade a spade" junk before is simply not relevant but does meet its intended purpose: to be inflamatory. Mike Teflon 01:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Contributory_negligence&oldid=71925988"