If you’ve been hurt in an accident and believe another party is at fault, it’s reasonable to seek compensation. Between lost wages and medical expenses, costs accumulate fast. However, securing that compensation isn’t always straightforward. The other party may try to argue that your own actions or inactions contributed to your injuries, potentially reducing the amount of damages you can recover. This is where the legal principles of contributory and comparative negligence come into play. Understanding how these doctrines apply, especially in cases involving dangerous premises and other personal injuries, can help you navigate the claims process.
What Is Contributory Negligence?
Contributory negligence occurs when someone’s own lack of reasonable care leads to an injury-causing accident. In these cases, the victim’s damages could be reduced or eliminated depending on how responsible the court determines they are for the accident. The main point in assessing contributory negligence is foreseeability—whether or not the injured person should have reasonably foreseen that their actions or lack of actions could result in self-harm, particularly in situations where other people may also be negligent.
In BC, contributory negligence is governed by the Negligence Act, which outlines how contributory fault is apportioned among multiple parties. According to the Negligence Act, when an injury is caused by two or more people, liability is divided in proportion to each party’s degree of fault. This is called comparative negligence. If it is not possible to determine degrees of fault, liability is shared equally. Additionally, contributory negligence does not require proving a duty of care. However, the standard of care expected from an injured party is the same as that of a reasonable person acting to protect their own safety or property.
What Is Comparative Negligence?
As mentioned, comparative negligence distributes fault between parties based on their level of responsibility for an accident and subsequent damages. BC uses a modified comparative negligence system. Unlike strict contributory negligence, which could see victims completely barred from recovering any damages if they are even slightly at fault, modified comparative negligence sees a victim’s compensation reduced by their percentage of fault. As long as the injured party’s level of fault does not exceed 50%, they can still recover damages. However, if the injured person is found to be more than 50% responsible, they may not collect any compensation.
How Courts Assess Contributory Negligence
Proving contributory negligence follows a similar process to establishing negligence against any other individual who played a part in an accident. Courts consider if the victim acted reasonably in protecting their own safety or property. Take the following example into consideration.
A construction company is completing work and leaves a large hole partially uncovered on a sidewalk. Work zone signs were in the area, but they were not localized around the obstruction. If an individual walking in the area was distracted by their phone, fell into the hole, and was injured, both the individual and the construction company likely share the fault. The construction company may be found negligent for failing to properly cover the hole and for not providing adequate signage, while the injured person may also be deemed negligent for not paying attention to where they were walking. The court would then determine each party’s level of responsibility and reduce the victim’s damages accordingly.
Talk to a Personal Injury Lawyer
Even if you were partially at fault for an accident, that doesn’t mean you should deal with the brunt of the consequences on your own, especially when other parties contributed to your injuries. Stephens & Holman can review your case and guide you through the claims process. Reach out today to schedule a free consultation to learn more.