Contributory Negligence vs. Comparative Fault in the State of Georgia
Pure Contributory Negligence
In order for the injured party to recover damage in a pure contributory negligence state they must be able to prove that they had absolutely no fault in their injury.
If the insurance company can prove that you contributed in any way to your own injuries, like you were going over the speed limit or you turned without your blinker, you won’t be able to recover any money at a trial. Even if your mistake only made you one percent responsible.
Pure contributory negligence states are hard on plaintiffs. D.C. modified their rule in 2016 to allow bike riders or pedestrians injured by vehicles to use the comparative fault rule instead of the harsher pure contributory negligence rule.
Comparative Negligence
A pure comparative fault approach reduces the injured party’s compensation in proportion to the amount of their personal responsibility for the accident and injuries. The percentages do not determine whether or not the plaintiff is eligible to receive damages. The injured driver could be 99 percent responsible for an accident and they could still sue and win one percent of the verdict (in theory).
Modified comparative fault cuts that approach off at 50 percent (in most states). The plaintiff’s damages are reduced by the percentage of their fault but if they are deemed to be more than half at fault, they can’t recover anything. If the injured driver is determined to be 51 percent at fault, they can recover nothing, but if they are 49 percent at fault, they can win 49 percent of the damages verdict.
What System Does Georgia Use?
Georgia has adopted the modified comparative negligence approach. In accordance with the Georgia Code Title 51, “A plaintiff's damages will be reduced by an amount in proportion to their fault” (Section 51-12-32).
This is only if the fault of the plaintiff is less than 50 percent. If a driver was found 41 percent liable for an accident in which he sustained injuries, he would only be awarded 59 percent of the total damages awarded by a jury.
How Might Comparative Fault Affect My Case?
Proving negligence and responsibility can be a tricky process.
What if a pedestrian darts into the middle of a road and an unsuspecting driver hits the pedestrian as a result. The pedestrian will likely receive more injuries than the driver, but who is to say which party is the most responsible for the collision?
Concerns about whether the driver of the vehicle was speeding or impaired are now subject to question. Was the car they were driving faulty in some way or in need of repairs? Was the pedestrian impaired and stumbled into the street? Is there evidence or a witness to corroborate each side’s version of events?
A plaintiff must also prove the following in order to make a negligence claim:
- The plaintiff was owed a duty of care (i.e. the defendant's reasonable care for another's safety)
- The defendant failed to act in a way that is reasonable
- The defendant's actions directly contributed to the accident or injury
- The defendant's failure was the imminent cause of the injuries (the defendant should have known their actions, or lack thereof, would cause injury)
- The plaintiff suffered significant injuries as a result of the defendant's actions
These are the minimum requirements, and as stated before, establishing fault or blame can be an arduous process. If you have questions about whether the cause of your accident or injury qualifies as negligence, the ATL Elite Lawyers are here to help. The Atlanta law firms we partner with are dedicated to fighting for the fair compensation Atlanta injury victims deserve.
Schedule a consultation online today.
