Understanding Contributory and Comparative Negligence in Georgia

If you’ve suffered harm or damage to your property or person due to the actions of another, you might be able to sustain an action for negligence in court and claim damages from the offending party.

Negligence occurs when an individual fails to exercise the necessary duty of care, resulting in injury to another individual or damage to property. In such cases, the injured party can file a personal injury lawsuit and get compensated for their injury.

However, the amount of compensation the injured party could get often depends on whether or not their actions contributed to the harm they suffered. In some cases, they may be unable to claim compensation once it is shown that they contributed to their injury. While in some other cases, their contribution could minimize the damages they can get.

The position that could apply in your specific case and the amount of damages you can get depends on the law on contributory or comparative negligence applicable in your state. Here we discuss these legal principles as applicable in Georgia. Keep reading to learn more about comparative and contributory negligence in Georgia and how a personal injury attorney can help you with your suit.

The grant of damages in negligence or personal injury suits is not automatic, even where harm or injury has been sufficiently established. The law allows the defendant in such a personal injury case to defend themselves by establishing that the injured party somehow contributed to the harm they suffered. The application of these defenses varies across the States, but they are broadly categorized as follows:

Contributory Negligence

Section 51-12-11 of the Georgia Code codifies the principle of contributory negligence. According to the law, a person injured by the negligence of another has a duty to try to protect themselves and reduce the damage they suffered by using ordinary care and diligence.

If they fail to protect themselves according to the required standards, it means they contributed to the negligence or harm they suffered.

Generally, contributory negligence laws bar plaintiffs from recovering damages for the negligence of others if they, too, were negligent in causing the harm. In jurisdictions where this doctrine holds sway, contributory negligence operates as an absolute defense for those who can establish the plaintiff’s liability.

Applying strict contributory negligence could result in injustice, so many states have adopted the comparative negligence principle, which appears to be more flexible.

Comparative Negligence

The principle of comparative negligence operates as a measurement system to determine the extent of each party’s contribution to the harm suffered by the plaintiff.

Where both parties in a suit are found to be negligent in a damages action, the jury will apportion blame between the parties based on their degree of negligence contributing to the incident. This affects how damages are awarded in the case. The amount of damages a plaintiff can recover is reduced proportionately by their allocation of the blame and apparent contribution to their injuries. For example, if it is found that the party being sued is sixty percent at fault and you, as the claimant, are forty percent at fault (or negligent), you will only be able to recover sixty percent of the cost of the damages rather than the complete 100%.

You may be wondering why Georgia law has provisions on both comparative negligence and contributory negligence. The reason is that rather than a single system that is governed absolutely by one of these principles, Georgia personal injury law operates a hybrid system of determining damages in negligence suits. The system fuses both principles in what is known as modified comparative negligence.

Modified Comparative (Fault) Negligence

From the provisions of the Georgia Code, the modified comparative fault approach appears to operate in a two-step manner.

To recover damages under this system, the plaintiff would likely need to first scale through the requirements of Section 51-11-7 by showing that the harm suffered could not be avoided with ordinary care.

What amounts to ordinary care is relative and depends on the case’s specific circumstances.

However, once it is shown that the harm was unavoidable via the ordinary care standard, the plaintiff would likely be entitled to compensation even though the plaintiff may have contributed to the injury sustained.

The next phase would involve the application of the comparative negligence principle of determining the extent/percentage of fault for each party.

Generally, you can only get compensation if your fault is assessed at less than 50 percent of the contribution to the injury you suffered. Anything above that bar might see you walking away with nothing.

To avoid such situations, consider hiring a skilled Car Accident Lawyer,  Atlanta Slip and Fall Attorney, or personal injury lawyer, depending on your circumstances, to help you establish your case in court and get compensated as much as possible.