Comparative negligence is a damages allocation doctrine that reduces a plaintiff's recovery proportional to their own fault in causing the injury. Under pure comparative negligence (used in roughly half of states), a plaintiff who is 90% at fault can still recover 10% of damages. Under modified comparative negligence (used in most other states), the plaintiff cannot recover if they are 50% or 51% or more at fault depending on the state formula. A small number of states use contributory negligence, where any plaintiff fault completely bars recovery. For PI attorneys, comparative negligence analysis affects case strategy, settlement negotiations, and jury instructions. Evidence of plaintiff's fault (not wearing a seatbelt, jaywalking, not following traffic signs) can dramatically reduce net recovery. Cases with significant comparative fault require careful evaluation of whether litigation risk outweighs settlement certainty.
← Glossary
Comparative Negligence
Legal principle reducing recovery by the percentage the plaintiff contributed to their own injuries through fault or carelessness.
Related terms
- Liability — Legal responsibility for causing harm. In PI cases, establishing liability requires proof the defendant breached a duty of care.
- Damages — Monetary compensation sought for losses including medical expenses, lost income, pain and suffering, and property damage.
- Settlement Negotiation — Back-and-forth discussions between plaintiff and defendant/insurer to reach a mutually acceptable resolution without trial.