Contributory Negligence, Comparative Negligence. What’s in a name? A lot.

For decades, actually until the 1970s, when Massachusetts adopted the rule of Comparative Negligence, a slightly different doctrine was in effect: the rule of contributory negligence which was a complete bar to the plaintiff’s recovery. Thankfully that standard has changed. If a plaintiff is found negligent in an amount of 50% or less, he/she can recover. The damages are reduced to the extent of the negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Therefore, if a plaintiff is 20% negligent, his/her damages will be reduced by 20%. This changed the law because it has allowed anyone found negligent in an amount of 50% or less to recover. Previously, the doctrine of contributory negligence would completely bar recover, even if the plaintiff’s negligence was slight.

The above was a softening or liberalizing of a harsh law. Perhaps it did not go far enough. Consider the law of Florida where there is pure comparative negligence. This allows a plaintiff to recover who is even more than 50% negligent. Of course, that plaintiff will have his/her damages reduced by his/her negligence. Needless to say, it is something that plaintiff personal injury lawyers prefer.

One advantage in Massachusetts is that a Judge will instruct the jury on the effect of finding a plaintiff more than 50% negligent. That was previously done on occasion, usually by referring to the very confusing Comparative Negligence Statute. Now, you can get an instruction that in a clear way will explain to the jury the effect of a finding of 51% or more negligence on a plaintiff. Full disclosure is always good.

– Robert Feinberg, a Boston personal injury attorney.

Injury law firm in Boston, Feinberg & Alban, discusses key details on contributory negligence and comparative negligence…

View Attorney Profile

Robert I. Feinberg

Licensed since 1982

Member at firm Feinberg & Alban, P.C.

AWARDS

AV Preeminent

RECENT POSTS

  • Statements of Intent
    Posted on December 5, 2012
    Topic: Civil Litigation

    In Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Hillmon, the Supreme Court rendered a famous and controversial judgement concerning the admissibility of a person’s out-of-court statement. Rule 803(3) of the Federal Rules of Evidence deals with the famous Hillmon case, but it restricts its applicability. In Hillmon, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed evidence of person A’s statement ... Read more

  • Jury Impanelment (Cont.)
    Posted on November 28, 2012
    Topic: Litigation

    Most trial attorneys and judges will tell you that you can never predict the way that jurors will interpret a case.  Further, because the secrecy of jury deliberations is so closely guarded, none of us can really know what specifically influenced the jurors.  The judges talk to the jurors after the verdict in the jury ... Read more

  • Civil Litigators… In the Beginning
    Posted on November 20, 2012
    Topic: Civil Litigation

    Having employed law students and new lawyers for almost thirty years, I find their perceptions worth sharing for what it says about the practice of law as opposed to their expectations. At the outset, let me point out that these are talented and earnest people.  In general, civil litigation is not what they expected after ... Read more

Robert I. Feinberg

Licensed since 1982

Member at firm Feinberg & Alban, P.C.

AWARDS

AV Preeminent

RECENT POSTS

  • Statements of Intent
    Posted on December 5, 2012
    Topic: Civil Litigation

    In Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Hillmon, the Supreme Court rendered a famous and controversial judgement concerning the admissibility of a person’s out-of-court statement. Rule 803(3) of the Federal Rules of Evidence deals with the famous Hillmon case, but it restricts its applicability. In Hillmon, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed evidence of person A’s statement ... Read more

  • Jury Impanelment (Cont.)
    Posted on November 28, 2012
    Topic: Litigation

    Most trial attorneys and judges will tell you that you can never predict the way that jurors will interpret a case.  Further, because the secrecy of jury deliberations is so closely guarded, none of us can really know what specifically influenced the jurors.  The judges talk to the jurors after the verdict in the jury ... Read more

  • Civil Litigators… In the Beginning
    Posted on November 20, 2012
    Topic: Civil Litigation

    Having employed law students and new lawyers for almost thirty years, I find their perceptions worth sharing for what it says about the practice of law as opposed to their expectations. At the outset, let me point out that these are talented and earnest people.  In general, civil litigation is not what they expected after ... Read more