What is an example of comparative negligence?
Comparative negligence refers to a legal doctrine that allows for the allocation of fault between two or more parties involved in an accident. This means that if a plaintiff is found to be partially at fault for an incident, their damages may be reduced in proportion to their degree of negligence. An example of comparative negligence can be found in a car accident scenario.
In this example, let’s consider two drivers, John and Jane. John is driving his car when he suddenly swerves to avoid a pedestrian who is jaywalking. Jane, who is following closely behind, is unable to stop in time and hits John’s car from behind. Both drivers are injured, and they file lawsuits against each other.
After a thorough investigation, it is determined that John was speeding at the time of the accident, which contributed to his inability to avoid the pedestrian. Jane, on the other hand, was following too closely, which is considered a form of negligence. The court finds that John is 40% at fault for speeding, while Jane is 60% at fault for following too closely.
Under the comparative negligence doctrine, John’s damages will be reduced by his percentage of fault. If John’s total damages are $100,000, his recovery will be reduced to $60,000 (60% of $100,000). Similarly, Jane’s damages will be reduced by her percentage of fault. If Jane’s total damages are $80,000, her recovery will be reduced to $48,000 (40% of $80,000).
This example illustrates how comparative negligence can impact the outcome of a lawsuit and the allocation of damages between parties involved in an accident. It is important for individuals to understand their level of negligence and how it may affect their legal rights and responsibilities in such situations.
