comparative negligence

Also found in: Dictionary, Medical, Legal, Financial, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
Related to comparative negligence: contributory negligence, Assumption of risk
Graphic Thesaurus  🔍
Display ON
Animation ON
  • noun

Words related to comparative negligence

(law) negligence allocated between the plaintiff and the defendant with a corresponding reduction in damages paid to the plaintiff

References in periodicals archive ?
If a preemptive instruction for claimant is appropriate on a defense issue, as when comparative negligence or assumption of risk has been brought to the jury's attention on voir dire or by opening statements or argument and is now to be withdrawn, an instruction in the form of instruction 401.13 should be given immediately following instruction 403.15.
Liability is crucial because comparative negligence is often overlooked.
At the same time, the failure of the patient to reveal some information may result in reduced damages through "comparative negligence." Because there will be several questions of fact for a jury to decide, as well as some emotional elements in this case, the outcome of a trial is uncertain.
The reality is that claims organizations often miss the mark as only around 3% of claims are assessed with comparative negligence. Jury research indicates that juries assess comparative negligence in more than half of all claims.
(51) Though softened by the modern shift to comparative negligence, in which victim fault merely reduces a tortfeasor's liability, the doctrine continues to require the examination of both parties' conduct in tort cases.
About USClaims: USClaims ( provides no-risk financial support for personal injury victims pursuing claims of, among others, catastrophic injury, comparative negligence, defective products, drug injury, insurer misconduct, medical malpractice, motor vehicle accidents, nursing home abuse, slip and fall, unsafe workplaces, and wrongful death, as well as class action and mass torts.
1973), the Florida Supreme Court began the process of equating fault with liability by adopting the doctrine of comparative negligence in the place of contributory negligence: The rule of contributory negligence as a complete bar to recovery was imported into the law by judges.
Beginning in the 1950s in the United States, however, it was argued that the regime of contributory negligence was unjust and that that long-standing rule should be replaced by a rule of comparative negligence, under which the relative contribution of the tortfeasor and victim would be weighed for the extent of their contribution to the accident.
While it Is certainly the better practice for an insured to read its policy, an insured should have a right to "look to the expertise of its broker with respect to insurance matters." The failure to read the policy, at most, may give rise to a defense of comparative negligence but should not bar, altogether, an action against a broker.
South Dakota is the only jurisdiction left in the United States that clings to a species of the archaic and ill-conceived comparative negligence law commonly referred to as the "slight-gross " rule.
(3) Developed through a string of judicial interpretations of the Kansas comparative negligence statute, (4) the rule has since been embraced by the legislature and has enjoyed consistent support in Kansas courts.
A jury found the agent liable under negligence and promissory estoppel theories, holding the agent responsible for $1,095.13 on the negligence count (the cleanup costs of $78,223.82, less the 98.6 percent comparative negligence that the jury assessed against the policyholder), but for the full $78,223.82 in damages under the promissory estoppel theory, to which comparative negligence did not apply under Missouri law.
On remand, and assuming Iran were to appear in court and offer a defense, an interesting argument could be made to limit damages as a result of the plaintiffs comparative negligence in allowing a young U.S.
of the risk (usually analyzed as an aspect of comparative negligence).
(17) For instance, some courts have not focused specifically on applying comparative fault principles to punitive damages, but rather whether a state's comparative negligence statute applies to intentional acts for which punitive recovery could be implicated.
Full browser ?