What Is Contributory Negligence? Definition & Examples

In a personal injury case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant did not behave reasonably in the circumstances, caused the injury and should be financially responsible for the injury.

When plaintiffs successfully prove a defendant was negligent, this doesn’t necessarily mean they will be compensated. Defendants can raise defenses to liability. In some states, contributory negligence is one of those defenses.

Under the concept of contributory negligence, even though a defendant is at least partly at fault for an accident, they can’t be held responsible because the plaintiff was also partly at fault. For example, if the plaintiff turned left at a signal, but did not have their turn signal on and was hit by a defendant who was speeding, both parties did not act reasonably in the circumstances and are both partly to blame.

This defense makes it challenging for plaintiffs to receive compensation for injuries. Because of this, most states no longer apply contributory negligence but instead use comparative negligence rules.

Doctrine of Contributory Negligence

Contributory negligence is a legal doctrine that applies in a minority of states, including Maryland, Virginia, Alabama, and North Carolina.

When contributory negligence applies, a defendant can avoid being held liable for losses if the plaintiff also shares any responsibility for the harm that occurred.

This rule is black-and-white. Even if a defendant is 99% responsible for injuring the plaintiff, the plaintiff wouldn’t be able to win a personal injury claim if the plaintiff is even 1% responsible. The plaintiff collects nothing if they are at fault in any way.

If, for example, a drunk driver hit a pedestrian who crossed in the middle of the road rather than at a crosswalk, the pedestrian was not using reasonable care. Even though the driver was drunk, did not act reasonably in driving while drunk, was negligent for driving drunk and caused harm, the pedestrian was also negligent for walking outside of the crosswalk and shares responsibility. If that state has a contributory negligence rule, then the defendant can use this as a defense.

The doctrine of comparative negligence is an alternative to contributory negligence. Most states have some type of comparative negligence law.

Remember, in a contributory negligence state, a plaintiff is prevented from recovering any compensation from a defendant if the plaintiff shares any responsibility for causing injuries. But in a comparative negligence state, that’s not the case.

Under the doctrine of comparative negligence, a plaintiff can still obtain compensation from a defendant even if the plaintiff was partly to blame for the injury. However, the plaintiff’s compensation is reduced based on their percentage of fault.

A pedestrian who didn’t use a crosswalk may have been 10% responsible for an accident while the drunk driver who hit them may have been 90% at fault. If the pedestrian sustained $10,000 in damages, they could recover 90% of losses, or $9,000, from the driver who was 90% to blame. The driver is only responsible for their proportionate amount of the damage based on their amount of fault.

States that follow comparative negligence rules can be divided into two categories:

• Pure comparative fault: A victim can always pursue a case, even if the defendant was less than 50% at fault. For example, a pedestrian who was 99% responsible for an accident could pursue compensation from the driver who was 1% to blame.
• Modified comparative fault: A victim can pursue a claim for compensation only against a defendant who was at least 50% or 51% to blame for injuries (depending on the state).

In order for a defendant to avoid responsibility for a plaintiff’s injuries due to contributory negligence, a defendant must prove:

• The plaintiff had a duty to act to avoid harm
• The plaintiff was negligent and failed to act in a manner that a reasonably prudent person would have under the same circumstances
• This negligence caused or partly caused the accident

Because of the rigidness of the contributory negligence rule, some states modified the doctrine to avoid unfair outcomes. For example, a “last clear chance” rule allows a plaintiff to recover from a defendant despite the plaintiff’s negligence if:

• The defendant was the last person involved in the incident who could have prevented the harm that occurred
• The defendant could have prevented the harm through reasonable means
• The defendant failed to do so

For example, the plaintiff stopped on their motorcycle in the middle of the road to text and the defendant hit them. Although it was negligent of the plaintiff to stop there, the defendant was negligent in hitting them and could have avoided it. The defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident and failed to do so.

Contributory negligence rules can apply in any personal injury claim arising from a defendant’s negligence. Common examples of cases where a defendant could use a contributory negligence defense include:

• Motorcycle accidents
• Auto accidents
• Truck accidents
• Bicycle accidents
• Pedestrian accidents
• Dog bites
• Slip and fall accidents
• Wrongful death

To determine if contributory negligence could affect the outcome of your personal injury claim, it is a good idea to talk with an experienced attorney.

In a tort case, establishing negligence is crucial because:

• A plaintiff often must show a defendant was negligent in order to recover compensation
• A defendant can claim a plaintiff was negligent in order to avoid liability when contributory negligence rules apply

Typically, negligence is demonstrated by showing that someone’s behavior fell below the standard of care that a reasonable person would have exhibited in the same situation. If a reasonably prudent person would have been aware of the potential for injury and would have acted differently, this provides proof of negligence.

It is sometimes possible to prove negligence in other ways too. For example, negligence per se is a legal doctrine under which a certain action is considered to be negligent if it violates a statute or regulation. If a driver is operating a vehicle while impaired, this is against the law. Under negligence per se rules, no additional evidence would be necessary to show negligence if a driver was drunk when they caused a crash.

In a personal injury case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the accident happened, the defendant was negligent and the plaintiff was harmed because of the negligence. Once a plaintiff has demonstrated this, a defendant can claim contributory negligence as a defense to avoid liability. The defense must show the plaintiff didn’t act reasonably under the circumstances and that this contributed in causing the accident. This is called the reasonable person standard.

The defense must convince the jury what a hypothetical person who is an average member of the community, displaying a reasonable level of care, would do in a similar situation. The standard does not take into account a plaintiff’s individual knowledge, abilities or awareness. It is up to the jury to determine if the plaintiff acted reasonably in the circumstances.

If a defendant successfully proves a plaintiff contributed to causing injury, the plaintiff cannot recover any compensation in a contributory negligence state.

It is very important to talk with an attorney when contributory negligence could be a factor in a personal injury case. An experienced personal injury lawyer can offer help in understanding how negligence rules work and what the likely outcome of an injury claim will be.