Comparative Negligence

Comparative negligence is a rule in civil tort law for allocating damages when more than one party contributed to causing harm. Instead of denying any recovery to a plaintiff who was partly at fault—the harsh result under the older contributory negligence doctrine—a fact-finder assigns each party a percentage of responsibility, and the plaintiff's award is reduced accordingly. If a plaintiff suffers $100,000 in damages and is found 30% responsible, recovery is $70,000.

Jurisdictions apply the doctrine in three main variants:

• Pure comparative negligence: the plaintiff may recover even if 99% at fault, with damages reduced by that percentage. Adopted in states such as California (following Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 1975), New York, and Florida (though Florida shifted toward a modified rule by statute in 2023).
• Modified comparative negligence — 50% bar: plaintiff recovers only if their fault is less than the defendant's (i.e., under 50%).
• Modified comparative negligence — 51% bar: plaintiff recovers if their fault is 50% or less. This is the most common U.S. approach, used in states like Texas and Illinois.

A small minority of U.S. jurisdictions—including Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, and the District of Columbia—still follow pure contributory negligence, where any plaintiff fault defeats the claim.

Outside the United States, similar apportionment principles operate under different labels. England and Wales codified the rule in the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, allowing courts to reduce damages as the court thinks "just and equitable." Civil-law systems such as Germany (BGB §254) and France apply comparable concepts of faute commune or shared fault.

For policy researchers and MUN delegates working on issues like road-safety conventions, product liability, or transboundary harm, comparative negligence illustrates how legal systems balance accountability with fairness when causation is shared. It is also frequently cited by analogy in discussions of state responsibility, though public international law uses its own framework under the ILC Articles on State Responsibility.