Personal Injury Law


Why is comparative fault considered fairer than contributory negligence?

Contributory negligence was considered harsh in some instances because it was an all-or-nothing rule. Sometimes a deserving plaintiff would be denied recovery—even though he or she was far less negligent than the defendant—because the jury or judge determined that the plaintiff was also a little bit negligent. In comparative negligence, a party is only responsible for his or her percentage of the total fault, which seems to be a much fairer and equitable system.


This is a web preview of the "The Handy Law Answer Book" app. Many features only work on your mobile device. If you like what you see, we hope you will consider buying. Get the App