What is the difference between contributory negligence and comparative negligence?

Contributory negligence and comparative negligence are two legal concepts related to medical malpractice law in California. Contributory negligence is a defense that is used when a patient is being sued for medical malpractice. It states that if the plaintiff (the patient being sued) was partly at fault for the injury sustained, then the defendant (the medical professional being sued) can not be held liable for the injury. This means that if the plaintiff was partly negligent, the defendant is not responsible for any damages. Comparative negligence, on the other hand, is a legal concept that allows a plaintiff to recover damages even if they are partially at fault. It is a way of determining who is at fault and how much each party is liable for. Under the comparative negligence system, the court will assess the degree to which each party is responsible for the injury and award damages based on the percentage of fault. In California, if the plaintiff is found to be 50% or less at fault, they can still recover damages, albeit reduced by the amount of their fault. In summary, contributory negligence is a defense that is used when a plaintiff is being sued and it states that if the patient was partly at fault, then the defendant cannot be held liable for the injury. Comparative negligence is a legal concept that allows a plaintiff to recover damages even if they are partially at fault. It assigns a percentage of fault to both parties and damages are awarded based on that percentage.

Related FAQs

What is the difference between contributory negligence and comparative negligence?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts