Lecture #22-3 Contributory and comparative negligence

Overview of Defenses Based on Plaintiff's Conduct

  • Focus on two legal defenses concerning the plaintiff's conduct in tort cases: Contributory Negligence and Comparative Negligence.

  • Examination of how plaintiff conduct impacts their ability to recover damages for injuries.

Historical Context

  • Reference to Chief Justice Shaw's opinion in Brown v. Kendall regarding plaintiff's conduct.

  • Contributory Negligence: Historical defense where if a plaintiff was negligent, they could not recover damages.

    • The argument: If plaintiff's negligence contributed to injury, recovery is denied.

    • The defendant holds the burden to prove plaintiff's negligence.

    • Outcome: If proven, the case is dismissed in favor of the defendant.

Issues with Contributory Negligence

  • The all-or-nothing rule could be unfair for plaintiffs with minor negligence as opposed to those with extreme negligence.

  • Courts began introducing exceptions (e.g., doctrine of the last clear chance) but these were insufficient.

  • Eventually, courts moved away from this doctrine towards a new approach known as Comparative Negligence.

Comparative Negligence

  • A defense that allocates degrees of negligence to all parties involved in the accident.

    • Typically expressed in percentages (e.g., plaintiff and defendant each at 50% fault).

  • Distinguishing from contributory negligence: Each party's negligence is assessed rather than an all-or-nothing dismissal of the claim.

Key Cases

  • McIntyre vs. Ballantyne: A landmark case wherein the court adopts Comparative Negligence, moving away from Contributory Negligence.

  • Coleman vs. Soccer Association of Columbia: A case that maintains the traditional Contributory Negligence stance.

Discussion Questions for Class

  • Discuss differences between Contributory Negligence and Comparative Negligence.

  • Explore reasons why the Coleman court rejected Comparative Negligence.

  • Analyze why the court in McIntyre opted to reject Contributory Negligence.

  • Consider public policy implications of both rulings.

Comparative Negligence Applications

  • Courts need to evaluate:

    • Which system of Comparative Negligence to employ.

    • Whether the jury should be informed of their decision's effects regarding plaintiff negligence percentage.

    • Implications for a tortfeasor not party to the lawsuit.

Apportionment of Liability

  • Apportionment/Allocation of Liability: Determining how the financial responsibility for the plaintiff's compensation is shared among tortfeasors.

  • This topic is complex and will be covered in detail in class to allow for questions.

Key Learning Objectives

  • By the end of class, students should be able to recognize, explain, and utilize concepts related to plaintiff's conduct evaluation in tort cases.