Comparative Negligence

Pursuant to the California Supreme Court, contributory negligence has been replaced with pure comparative negligence. The rationale is designed to allocate responsibility and liability for damage by the actual proportion to the fault of the persons whose negligence caused the injury. There is no longer a contributory negligent theory, which limits liability if the plaintiff was even one percent at fault for the injury. Instead, comparative negligence reduced the damages to the percentage in which the plaintiff contributed to the injury.

Comparative negligence allows the court to weigh all of the pertaining evidence in order to produce the most justicible solution. The doctrine allows a jury to asses the proportion of damages based on the facts and duties of both the parties. The use of a jury is relatively accurate and creates an efficient determination of the plaintiff's actions in a negligence action. However, an injured party is still required to meet the burden of proof by showing the defendant was somehow responsible for the injury.

In addition comparative negligence is applicable in actions by firemen, police, and sheriffs against landowners for injuries that occurred in the line of duty. Moreover, a landowner cannot use the assumption of risk doctrine to prevent liability against individuals in the following health care occupations.

We Will Get You The Money You Deserve!

Choose an Experienced Personal Injury Lawyer

If you, a family member or friend has suffered a personal injury because of the neglect of another, contact us immediately to discuss your case.  We will guide you throughout the legal process and get you the money you deserve -- using all the skills from our years of personal injury law practice.  Give us a call today for a Free Consultation. We are on your side. We will help you.