Some people feel very confident about their ability to pursue a personal injury lawsuit after a car crash. Maybe a drunk driver crossed the center line and hit them head on or someone with their phone in their hand ran a red light. In scenarios where fault is clear and falls fully on the other party, the pursuit of compensation in civil court is often a straightforward process.
Other times, those injured in motor vehicle collisions may feel uncertain about their rights. They may worry that they cannot hold the other party accountable because they may have contributed to the crash through a minor mistake of their own. Although they can still initiate a lawsuit, they may worry that the other party might try to defend against their claim by blaming them for the incident.
The courts may have to consider whether the plaintiff played a role in the incident and whether that affects their eligibility for compensation and how much compensation they receive. That defense strategy relies on comparative or contributory negligence.
What is the difference between comparative negligence and contributory negligence?
Contributory negligence rules can bar recovery
The legal concept of contributory negligence allows a defendant in a personal injury lawsuit scenario to blame the plaintiff and avoid responsibility. In a traditional or pure contributory negligence scenario, someone who is 1% to blame for a car crash could not take legal action against another party who is 99% to blame for the incident.
Comparative negligence, on the other hand, looks at the nuance of the situation and adjusts the compensation available accordingly. In jurisdictions with comparative negligence statutes, defendants can fight civil lawsuits by claiming the plaintiff was at fault. The courts allocate a percentage of fault to them and may then reduce the compensation provided based on the percentage of comparative faults the plaintiff has.
Some states allow plaintiffs to take legal action when they are 99% to blame and the other party is only 1% to blame. The standard in Kansas is a bit stricter. Kansas acknowledges modified comparative negligence in personal injury lawsuit scenarios. The plaintiff typically cannot have more than 49% of the comparative negligence for the crash if they want to pursue compensation.
Learning more about state negligence laws can help those who need to pursue personal injury compensation after a car crash. Those who contribute in minor ways to a wreck may still be able to seek financial justice in the civil courts in many cases.