Define: Contributory Negligence

Contributory negligence is a common law doctrine which states if a person’s injury or loss is caused by their own negligence they are not entitled to receive compensation for their loss. Only five states continue to use their doctrine to determine damages in an injury claim.

Most states have replaced the system of contributory negligence, which was leftover from British common law, with comparative negligence which allows claimants to recover compensation to the degree of their fault. For instance, under comparative negligence, the amount of the plaintiff’s award is reduced by the extent to which the plaintiff’s conduct contributed to the harm suffered.

In the five states which use a pure contributory negligence system, this serves as a complete bar to recovery in an injury claim for any party who is found to have contributed to their injuries at all. The states that still use pure contributory negligence are Alabama, Virginia, Maryland, and North Carolina; and the District of Columbia.

Until 1945 it was a complete defence in the UK, to a claim of Negligence that the claimant was himself to blame, even slightly, for the loss or damage he suffered. As a result, a person who was badly and obviously wronged could end up losing out in a tort action. The Law reform contributory negligence act (1945) eliminates the defence of contributory negligence, and in its place gives the courts the power to reduce the award of damages in proportion to the claimant’s share of the blame.

Contributory negligence is a common-law defence to a claim based on negligence, an action in tort. It applies to cases where plaintiffs have, through their own negligence, contributed to causing the damages they incurred as a result of defendants’ negligence. For instance, a driver who is also driving carelessly hits a pedestrian as they cross the road. Contributory negligence is distinguishable from contribution, which is a claim brought by one or more defendants seeking to have a third party pay some or all of any money damages awarded to a plaintiff.

Scope Of The Defence

At common law, contributory negligence was originally an absolute defence. If a defendant successfully raised the defence, he would be able to avoid liability for the tort completely. This could lead to injustice where the negligence of the plaintiff or claimant was slight. The defence of contributory negligence would prevent them from recovering any damages at all.

Most jurisdictions in the United States have modified the doctrine, either by court decision or by legislation and have accordingly changed the name to comparative negligence, wherein, rather than awarding no damages at all, the jury reduces the compensation to be awarded by a percentage reflecting the degree to which the plaintiff’s negligence contributed to cause the damages. In England and Wales, the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 had a similar effect (the similar, current doctrine being termed Acts of the claimant). Maryland, Alabama, North Carolina, Virginia, and the District of Columbia retain contributory negligence as a complete defence to negligence.

Burden Of proof

In some jurisdictions, the defendant has to prove the negligence of the plaintiff or claimant; in others, the burden is on the plaintiff or claimant to disprove their own negligence. The tortfeasor may still be held liable if he had the last clear chance to prevent the injury (the last clear chance doctrine).

Applicability

Contributory negligence is generally a defence to tort claims arising out of the negligence of the defendant. In contrast, where the defendant’s conduct amounts to malicious or intentional wrongdoing as opposed to ordinary negligence, the defence does not apply. In England and Wales, it is not a defence to the torts of conversion or trespass to goods, and in the US, it is not a defence to an intentional tort.

Culture

Contributory Negligence” was the title and subject of a circa 1982 poem by Attila the Stockbroker, a UK performance poet, protesting at the mere fine given to a rapist after the high court judge determined that the women concerned in some way provoked or contributed to the rape.

This site contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. Persuing this glossary does not create an attorney-client or legal adviser relationship. If you have specific questions, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

This glossary post was last updated: 10th April, 2024.