contributory negligence

(redirected from Contributorily negligent)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Financial.

contributory negligence

n. a doctrine of common law that if a person was injured in part due to his/her own negligence (his/her negligence "contributed" to the accident), the injured party would not be entitled to collect any damages (money) from another party who supposedly caused the accident. Under this rule, a badly injured person who was only slightly negligent could not win in court against a very negligent defendant. If Joe Tosspot were driving drunk and speeding and Angela Comfort were going 25 m.p.h. but six inches over the center-line, most likely Angela would be precluded from any recovery (receiving any money for injuries or damages) from a car crash. The possible unfair results have led some juries to ignore the rule and, in the past few decades, most states have adopted a comparative negligence test in which the relative percentages of negligence by each person are used to determine damage recovery (how much money would be paid to the injured person.) (See: negligence, comparative negligence)

contributory negligence

lack of care by a plaintiff for his own safety. (In the USA the term comparative negligence is sometimes used.) Before the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, negligence on the part of the party suing was a complete defence, however insignificant it was in the whole picture. The Act allowed a proportion of the damages to be reduced to reflect the plaintiff's fault. Children can be held to be contributorily negligent.
References in periodicals archive ?
Without ruling on the issue of who was negligent, the 4th Circuit said a jury could find the family was not contributorily negligent but reasonably relied on its trusted financial analyst, much as clients depend on the advice of their respected attorneys.
It seems clear, for example, that an adult plaintiff would not be found contributorily negligent in attempting to save a life, say, by running in front of a car to rescue a toddler, whereas one who ran in front of a car to fetch a ball would.
The operative language of CPLR 1601(1), which is the subject of this article, is that a defendant's liability "for non-economic loss shall not exceed that defendant's equitable share determined in accordance with the relative culpability of each person causing or contributing to the total liability for non-economic loss." (56) Is the phrase "each person causing or contributing to the total liability" (57) intended to apply to all parties, including contributorily negligent plaintiffs, or only to liable defendants that are otherwise jointly and severally responsible for the judgment?
Deiss, an emergency room malpractice case, the Montana Supreme Court considered a defendant's claim that a young girl with a history of asthma was contributorily negligent for riding a horse while experiencing an asthma attack.
Since the plaintiff was not warned of the stroke risk of oral contraceptives or the heightened risk in smokers, it is unlikely she will be found to be contributorily negligent. A victim is required to mitigate his or her losses, and the medical noncompliance in this case will likely lead to a reduction in her award.
No matter how often I explained this, she simply refused to accept the law or the possibility that a jury would find her contributorily negligent.
Whether or not the patient was contributorily negligent in causing his injuries was inadmissible in evidence in this medical malpractice suit.
This does not mean that an owner-passenger cannot be contributorily negligent. Rather, we are simply dispensing with the presumption that an injured owner-passenger is contributorily negligent because the driver is negligent.
Patient did not ask about side effects and therefore was contributorily negligent.
Again, unlike the majority, the dissenting judge had serious reservations as to whether the patient was, in fact, contributorily negligent, noting that during the course of her treatment at the hospital her husband, who had inflicted bodily harm upon her, was never too far from her.
So, try using it when it is a crystal clear, res ipsa loquitur situation that the injured claimant was contributorily negligent. The courts say that it's whatever the jury decides.
At trial, the judge found his employer contributorily negligent and liable for thirty percent of his damages.