Warning
Info
Warning
Info
Simple English definitions for legal terms
comparative-negligence doctrine
Read a random definition: divortium
A quick definition of comparative-negligence doctrine:
The comparative-negligence doctrine is a legal principle that says if someone is partially responsible for their own injury or damage, they can still receive compensation, but the amount will be reduced based on their level of fault. This means that if someone is found to be 50% responsible for their injury, they will only receive 50% of the compensation they would have received if they were not at fault at all. Most states have laws that follow this principle. It is different from the contributory-negligence doctrine, which completely bars recovery if the plaintiff is found to be even slightly at fault.
A more thorough explanation:
The comparative-negligence doctrine is a legal principle that reduces the amount of compensation a plaintiff can receive in a lawsuit based on their degree of fault in causing the damage. This means that if the plaintiff is partially responsible for the harm they suffered, their recovery will be reduced proportionally to their level of fault, rather than being completely barred from receiving any compensation.
For example, if a person is injured in a car accident and it is determined that they were 30% at fault for the accident because they were not wearing a seatbelt, their compensation would be reduced by 30%. So if they were awarded $10,000 in damages, they would only receive $7,000.
Most states have adopted the comparative-negligence doctrine as a way to ensure that plaintiffs are not completely barred from receiving compensation for their injuries, even if they were partially at fault. This doctrine allows for a fairer distribution of responsibility between the parties involved in a lawsuit.