These are the search results based on your query.
Modified Comparative Negligence
Modified comparative negligence is a legal doctrine used to determine how damages are allocated in personal injury cases when both parties share some degree of fault for an accident. Under this rule, a plaintiff can recover damages from another party only if their own share of fault is below a certain threshold—typically 50% or 51%, depending on the jurisdiction.
Key Features of Modified Comparative Negligence
- Threshold for Recovery:
- In most states using this rule, a plaintiff is barred from recovering any damages if they are found to be 51% or more at fault for their own injuries. Some states use a 50% threshold, meaning a plaintiff cannot recover if they are equally at fault or more at fault than the defendant.
- Damage Reduction:
- If the plaintiff is less than the threshold percentage at fault, their damages are reduced by their own percentage of fault. For example, if a plaintiff is found to be 40% at fault and the defendant 60%, the plaintiff can recover 60% of their damages.
- Purpose:
- This system is designed to provide a fairer outcome than older doctrines like contributory negligence, which barred any recovery if the plaintiff was even slightly at fault.
Comparison Table: Modified vs. Pure Comparative Negligence
| Doctrine | Plaintiff Can Recover If... | Damages Reduced By... |
|---|---|---|
| Modified Comparative Negligence | Fault is less than threshold (50/51%) | Plaintiff’s % of fault |
| Pure Comparative Negligence | Any % of fault (even 99%) | Plaintiff’s % of fault |
Example
If two drivers are involved in an accident and the plaintiff is found to be 40% at fault while the defendant is 60% at fault, the plaintiff can recover 60% of their damages under modified comparative negligence, provided their fault is below the state’s threshold.
This doctrine is widely adopted in many U.S. states to ensure a balanced approach to liability in personal injury cases.