Contributory Negligence in California – Does It Still Apply?

Posted on August 29, 2021

California no longer applies the tort law principle of contributory negligence. Instead, California law now applies pure comparative negligence rules in personal injury cases. Under these rules, a person responsible for causing an accident only compensates the injured party in accordance with his/her percentage of fault.

For example, if a party is only 25 percent at fault for causing an accident, the person will only be liable for paying 25 percent of the total amount of damages in a case. The other at-fault parties are then responsible for compensating the accident victim in accordance with their specific percentage of fault.

Comparative fault laws can apply to most California injury cases. The most common types of claims involving these rules include:

• car accidents or a vehicle accident,
• bike accidents,
• premises liability,
• slip and fall accidents,
• product liability, and
• medical malpractice.

Comparative negligence laws are often referred to as “comparative fault laws.” In addition to California, the majority of states in the U.S. follow these rules.

Comparative fault laws are often contrasted with contributory negligence rules. Under pure contributory negligence, a plaintiff is prohibited from recovering damages in a personal injury lawsuit if his/her own negligence helped cause the accident, even by the slightest amount.

What are California’s comparative negligence laws?

Most of the states in the United States, including California, are comparative negligence states. This means they apply comparative fault laws.

Per California’s pure comparative fault laws, a plaintiff can recover damages in a personal injury lawsuit against a defendant. However, the plaintiff’s ultimate recovery will be reduced by his/her own fault, or level of fault.¹

In other words, in a personal injury case, a judge or jury will decide what percentage of the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to his/her injuries. If the plaintiff was partially responsible for his or her own harm, the damages award will be reduced by the plaintiff’s percentage of fault.²

Comparative negligence works, then, by reducing compensation for one’s own injuries in accordance with one’s own fault.

Consider, for example, a dog bite case where the plaintiff helped provoke the canine by throwing a rock. Here, the plaintiff clearly helped stir the dog and this could have helped cause the bite. If a jury determines that the plaintiff’s actions were 10 percent to blame for the bite, then a final damage award will get lowered by 10 percent.

Comparative fault laws can apply to most California injury cases. Common types of claims involving these rules include:

• car accidents or a vehicle accident,
• bike accidents,
• premises liability,
• slip and fall accidents,
• product liability, and
• medical malpractice.

What is modified comparative negligence?

Comparative negligence states can apply either:

• pure comparative negligence laws, or
• modified comparative negligence laws.

As stated above, California follows a pure comparative negligence standard.

States that apply the legal doctrine of modified comparative negligence generally follow either a 50 percent rule or a 51percent rule.

In a 50 percent rule state, the plaintiff cannot collect any damages if the plaintiff is 50 percent or more at fault for the accident.

In a 51 percent rule state, the plaintiff cannot collect any damages if the plaintiff is 51percent or more at fault for the accident.

States like Nevada follow a modified comparative negligence 5o percent rule. In a personal injury accident in Nevada, the plaintiff would be barred from recovering damages if he or she is more than 50 percent responsible for an accident or injury.

In a pure comparative negligence state, a plaintiff can recover damages from a defendant even if he/she bears almost all of the responsibility for causing an accident.

What is contributory negligence?

Contributory negligence laws essentially prohibit a plaintiff from recovering damages for an injury accident if a jury finds that he/she was negligent in any way for causing that accident. “In any way” means a plaintiff is barred from recovery even if he/she helped cause an accident by a mere one percent.³

Only a few states still follow this system of negligence. Some include:

• Maryland,
• North Carolina (but not South Carolina)
• Virginia (but not West Virginia)

California used to apply a contributory negligence standard. But in 1975, the California Supreme Court decided that it was unfair. It replaced “contributory negligence” with California’s “comparative fault” (or “shared fault”) law.⁴

What types of damages can a judge or jury award in a personal injury accident?

A plaintiff can recover several different types of damages in a personal injury lawsuit. For example, a plaintiff can get compensated for:

• medical expenses,
• lost wages,
• certain noneconomic damages (like pain and suffering), and
• property damage.

Note, though, that a plaintiff is only entitled to compensation in most cases if he/she can show that the defendant acted negligently.

“Negligence” means that the defendant breached a duty of care that he or she owed to the plaintiff.

This can often be difficult to prove and injured parties should seek the assistance of a skilled personal injury attorney or law firm in these types of cases.

Personal injury lawyers (like those in San Diego, San Francisco, and Los Angeles) typically provide free consultations and can help injured parties get the compensation they deserve.

---

Legal References:

1. Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.
2. California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) 406. See also Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1270.
3. Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.
4. Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3rd 804.