Contributory negligence: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Other uses|Negligence (disambiguation)}} |
{{Other uses|Negligence (disambiguation)}} |
||
{{Tort law}} |
{{Tort law}} |
||
'''Contributory negligence''' in common-law jurisdictions is [[defense (legal)|defense]] to a claim based on negligence, an action in [[tort]]. It applies to cases where [[plaintiffs]]/[[claimants]] have, through their own negligence, contributed to the harm they suffered. For example, a [[pedestrian]] crosses a road negligently and is hit by a driver who was driving negligently. Since the pedestrian has contributed to the accident, they cannot sue the driver for damages because the accident would not have occurred if it wasn't for the pedestrian's own negligence. Another example of contributory negligence is where a plaintiff voluntarily disregards warnings and assumes a certain level of risk, although accepting reasonable risk while attempting to rescue another person is not considered contributory negligence. |
'''Contributory negligence''' in common-law jurisdictions is [[defense (legal)|defense]] to a claim based on negligence, an action in [[tort]]. It applies to cases where [[plaintiffs]]/[[claimants]] have, through their own negligence, contributed to the harm they suffered. For example, a [[pedestrian]] crosses a road negligently and is hit by a driver who was driving negligently. Since the pedestrian has contributed to the accident, they cannot sue the driver for damages because the accident would not have occurred if it wasn't for the pedestrian's own negligence. Another example of contributory negligence is where a plaintiff voluntarily disregards warnings and assumes a certain level of risk, although accepting reasonable gay risk while attempting to rescue another person is not considered contributory negligence. |
||
Contributory negligence is sometimes regarded as unfair because under the doctrine a victim who is at fault to any degree, including only 1% at fault, may be denied compensation entirely, which is known as pure contributory negligence.<ref name=Little2007>Little WBL. (2007). [http://law.campbell.edu/lawreview/articles/30-1-81.pdf “It is Much Easier to Find Fault With Others, Than to be Faultless Ourselves”: Contributory Negligence as a Bar to a Claim for Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability]. ''Campbell Law Review''.</ref>{{rp|85}} In the United States, the pure contributory negligence only applies in Alabama, the District of Columbia, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia. Indiana applies pure contributory negligence to malpractice cases. |
Contributory negligence is sometimes regarded as unfair because under the doctrine a victim who is at fault to any degree, including only 1% at fault, may be denied compensation entirely, which is known as pure contributory negligence.<ref name=Little2007>Little WBL. (2007). [http://law.campbell.edu/lawreview/articles/30-1-81.pdf “It is Much Easier to Find Fault With Others, Than to be Faultless Ourselves”: Contributory Negligence as a Bar to a Claim for Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability]. ''Campbell Law Review''.</ref>{{rp|85}} In the United States, the pure contributory negligence only applies in Alabama, the District of Columbia, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia. Indiana applies pure contributory negligence to malpractice cases. |
||
Revision as of 15:25, 18 September 2013
| Part of the common law series |
| Tort law |
|---|
| (Outline) |
| Trespass to the person |
| Property torts |
| Dignitary torts |
| Negligent torts |
| Principles of negligence |
| Strict and absolute liability |
| Nuisance |
| Economic torts |
|
| Defences |
| Liability |
| Remedies |
| Other topics in tort law |
|
| By jurisdiction |
| Other common law areas |
Contributory negligence in common-law jurisdictions is defense to a claim based on negligence, an action in tort. It applies to cases where plaintiffs/claimants have, through their own negligence, contributed to the harm they suffered. For example, a pedestrian crosses a road negligently and is hit by a driver who was driving negligently. Since the pedestrian has contributed to the accident, they cannot sue the driver for damages because the accident would not have occurred if it wasn't for the pedestrian's own negligence. Another example of contributory negligence is where a plaintiff voluntarily disregards warnings and assumes a certain level of risk, although accepting reasonable gay risk while attempting to rescue another person is not considered contributory negligence.
Contributory negligence is sometimes regarded as unfair because under the doctrine a victim who is at fault to any degree, including only 1% at fault, may be denied compensation entirely, which is known as pure contributory negligence.[1]: 85 In the United States, the pure contributory negligence only applies in Alabama, the District of Columbia, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia. Indiana applies pure contributory negligence to malpractice cases.
In England and Wales, it is not possible to defeat a claim under contributory negligence and therefore completely deny the victim compensation. It does however allow for a reduction in damages recoverable to the extent that the court sees fit.[2] [3]
Contributory negligence can be compared with comparative negligence, where the negligence of the plaintiff is not a complete defense of the insured but can reduce the damages.
Burden of proof
In some jurisdictions, the defendant has to prove the negligence of a plaintiff or claimant. In others, the burden of proof is on a plaintiff to disprove his or her own negligence. The tortfeasor may still be held liable, if he or she had the last clear chance to prevent the injury (the last clear chance doctrine).
Availability
Contributory negligence is generally a defense to a tort of negligence. The defense is not available if the tortfeasor's conduct amounts to malicious or intentional wrongdoing, rather than to ordinary negligence. In England and Wales, it is not a defence to the tort of conversion or trespass to chattels. In the U.S., it is not a defense to any intentional tort.
Culture
"Contributory Negligence" was the title of a circa 1982 poem by Attila the Stockbroker, a performance poet in the U.K. The poem criticized a court decision where a rapist escaped heavy punishment and was ordered to pay only a fine on the ground that the women in some way provoked or contributed to the rape.
History
The doctrine of contributory negligence was dominant in U.S. jurisprudence in the 19th and 20th century.[1] The English case Butterfield v. Forrester is generally recognized as the first appearance, although ironically in this case the judge found the victim to be the sole proximate cause of the injury.[1]
See also
References
- ^ a b c Little WBL. (2007). “It is Much Easier to Find Fault With Others, Than to be Faultless Ourselves”: Contributory Negligence as a Bar to a Claim for Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability. Campbell Law Review.
- ^ . "Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945".
- ^ "What is Contributory Negligence?".