Could “Contributory Negligence” Defeat Your Personal Injury Lawsuit?
Historically, courts in the United States applied a common-law rule known as “contributory negligence” to personal injury lawsuits. Essentially, contributory negligence meant that if the plaintiff was responsible in any way for their own injuries, the defendant owed them nothing. To put it in stark terms, let’s say a defendant was found 99 percent at-fault for a car accident. The plaintiff was found 1 percent at-fault. Under contributory negligence, the plaintiff received zero compensation since they were found negligent to any degree.
Obviously, contributory negligence is a harsh rule for accident victims. Most states agreed, and over the years, their legislatures adopted some form of what we call “comparative negligence” or “comparative fault.” Under comparative negligence, a plaintiff can still recover some compensation from a negligent defendant based on the proportion of fault. So in our hypothetical lawsuit, the 99-percent liable defendant would have to pay 99 percent of the plaintiff’s total damages arising from the car accident.
Each state that follows comparative negligence does so slightly differently. Kentucky follows a “pure comparative negligence” rule, under which a plaintiff can still receive compensation regardless of their own degree of fault. Indiana and Tennessee, in contrast, use a “modified comparative negligence” rule, where the plaintiff’s percentage of fault cannot exceed a certain threshold.
Court Dismisses Injured Electric Scooterist’s Lawsuit Against Indianapolis
Outside of a handful of states, such as Virginia, which still follow contributory negligence in all personal injury cases, there are still a few situations where the older rule may still apply to certain types of claims in states that have moved to comparative negligence. The Indiana Court of Appeals recently addressed one of these situations.
The case, Areche v. Indianapolis Department of Public Works, involved a Florida tourist (the plaintiff) injured while using a Lime-brand electric scooter on an Indianapolis sidewalk. The scooter struck a large, gravel-filled hole in the sidewalk, throwing the plaintiff from the vehicle onto the street.
The plaintiff subsequently sued the City of Indianapolis, arguing its negligence in maintaining the pothole caused his accident. The City moved to dismiss on the grounds the plaintiff’s own negligence caused the accident. And while Indiana is a comparative fault state, claims against a state or local government still fall under the contributory negligence rule, thus barring the plaintiff’s lawsuit.
The trial court, and later the Indiana Court of Appeals, agreed with the City and dismissed the case. The appellate court explained that the plaintiff was “negligent per se” in operating his scooter on a city sidewalk, which was barred by local ordinance. More to the point, when the Indiana legislature adopted the comparative fault rule for personal injury cases, it exempted claims “against governmental entities.” So once the plaintiff’s negligence–to any degree–was established, he could no longer recover any financial compensation from the City.
Contact a Madisonville Personal Injury Lawyer Today
Even if you believe that someone else is responsible for your accident, the law may see things differently. Our qualified Madisonville personal injury lawyers can assist you in building the strongest possible case for compensation. Contact Whitfield Crosby & Flynn to schedule a consultation. We have offices in Madisonville, Kentucky; Chattanooga, Tennessee; and Indianapolis, Indiana.
Source:
scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6454478416879908727
