Understanding Comparative Fault, Contributory Negligence and Joint & Several Liability

By Gary Wickert | September 5, 2013

  • September 9, 2013 at 1:00 pm
    Irene Ochoa says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 1

    I found this to be an exceptionally well written article with clear examples to reinforce my understanding the complex material.

  • January 20, 2014 at 7:27 pm
    JR Insurance Guy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    Another good article by the Claims Journal staff. You guys are becoming a good source for material and resources. Now you just need to create an indexed database where we can access this information more freely. All this information would just get lost by entropy as you update the site with more articles.

  • December 10, 2014 at 3:16 pm
    Kristen B. says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    South Dakota uses slight/gross comparative negligence, not pure comparative. See S.D.C.L. 20-9-2.

  • January 25, 2015 at 9:06 pm
    Shawn says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Question?
    If in accident(in California) that is not my fault some body died on the other car do i have responsibility for that loss.

    Thanks

  • May 8, 2015 at 2:00 pm
    Tim says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 2

    South Carolina is a 51% bar, not a 50% bar. The precise language from Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co., 303 S.C. 243 (1991), is that “a plaintiff in a negligence action may recover damages if his or her negligence is not greater than that of the defendant.” This would be a great resource if it was accurate.

    • February 25, 2016 at 4:13 pm
      Howard says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 1

      Also, the description of “pure contributory negligence” is wrong. Courts in states with contributory negligence do not assign percentages of fault like comparative states. Instead, in cases where the plaintiff is deemed slightly negligent, the doctrine of remote cause may still permit the plaintiff to recover. “The rule is that when the negligence of the defendant is proximate and that of the plaintiff remote, the action can be sustained, although the plaintiff is not entirely without fault; but if the injury is the product of mutual or concurring negligence, no action for damages will lie.” Doggett v. Richmond & Danville R.R., 78 N.C. 305, 307 (1878).

  • August 25, 2015 at 6:11 pm
    Shelby says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I am an independent Casualty Adjuster in Texas handling a claim for an out of state carrier. The insured was driving a rental vehicle and was involved in an accident. The carrier agreed to accept 80% liability and paid the third party property damage claim, less 20%. The rental company is seeking 100% recovery under the insured’s policy due to the contractual agreement. The third party carrier denied the rental car company’s claim in full under the Modified Comparative Rule of Negligence stating their driver was only found to be 20% at fault. I know that the insured is barred from recovery against the third party carrier based on this rule. Is the carrier obligated to pay the rental car company 100% of the damage to the rental vehicle? OR can the carrier pay 80% of the damage to the rental car company and have the insured or rental car company pursue litigation for the remaining 20%?

  • October 11, 2015 at 11:03 am
    Jim C says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    In 2009 I was involved in a rear end accident which resulted with injury to Myself, 4 other vehicles altogether. The vehicle behind me failed to see traffic slowing down due to congestion from morning traffic, hit me at 70 mph.pushing me into car in front of me,then 3 cars hit each other from behind the vehicle that hit me. My company truck had auto ins, as did the company truck that hit me. Both truck’s had same ins carrier, but different company’s. At trial, only the defendant ins. carrier was his attorney, my auto policy, with same ins. company, wasn’t used by my employer or ins. company, with no airbag activated it caused severe injury’s to me, so my employer put me in Work. Comp, now I have to pay my employer back. Jury found defendant 100 Neg. and I have to pay back to my employer, WHERE WAS MY AUTO Ins with same dam carrier, not right. Judge hide CHP Report which was the only copy with both Policy’s from same Ins. provider, Please tell me why the Company truck I had with same Ins. Co. as the other Co truck, why wasn’t my policy used too? Please help, nobody will tell me.

  • June 17, 2016 at 5:09 pm
    joseph says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I would really like to understand comparative fault in a dog bite situation but that issue is tough to find. How can someone be cooperatively at fault in a strict liability case? It makes no sense. Thanks



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*