Contributory negligence is an issue that often arises in personal injury cases in Florida. It refers to the idea that the plaintiff’s own actions contributed to their injuries and should be held partially responsible for the damages.
In Florida, the legal principle of modified comparative negligence is applied, meaning that a plaintiff’s damages can be reduced in proportion to their degree of fault. This blog will discuss what modified comparative negligence means and how a personal injury lawyer can defend against claims of contributory negligence in Florida personal injury cases.
What is Modified Comparative Negligence?
Modified comparative negligence is a principle that is applied in personal injury cases in Florida. Under this principle, a plaintiff’s damages can be reduced in proportion to their degree of fault. For example, if a plaintiff is adjudicated to be 30% at fault for an accident, their damages will be reduced by 30%. However, if the claimant is deemed over 50% responsible for the incident, they will not be entitled to any damages at all.
How Does A Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Lawyer Defend Against Claims of Contributory Negligence?
There are several specific examples of how a plaintiff in a personal injury (PI) claim can overcome the defense argument that they contributed to the accident:
1. Establishing that the defendant’s negligence was the primary cause of the accident: If the plaintiff can demonstrate that the defendant’s negligence was the primary cause of the accident, then the defendant’s argument of contributory negligence becomes weaker. For example, if the plaintiff was injured in a car accident, but the defendant was speeding and ran a red light, the plaintiff’s contributory negligence argument becomes less effective.
2. Presenting evidence that the plaintiff’s actions did not contribute to the accident: If the plaintiff can demonstrate that their actions did not contribute to the accident, then the defendant’s argument of contributory negligence becomes irrelevant. For example, if the plaintiff was walking on a sidewalk and was hit by a car that lost control due to a mechanical defect, then the plaintiff’s actions did not contribute to the accident.
3. Providing evidence that the plaintiff’s actions were reasonable under the circumstances: Even if the plaintiff’s actions did contribute to the accident, the defendant may still be liable if the plaintiff’s actions were reasonable under the circumstances. For example, if the plaintiff swerved to avoid a pedestrian who suddenly stepped into the road, then their actions may be considered reasonable under the circumstances.
4. Establishing that the plaintiff’s injuries would have occurred even if they had not contributed to the accident: If the plaintiff can demonstrate that their injuries would have occurred even if they had not contributed to the accident, then the defendant’s argument of contributory negligence becomes weaker. For instance, if the plaintiff was injured in a slip and fall accident due to a wet floor, but the defendant failed to post warning signs, the plaintiff’s contributory negligence argument becomes less effective.
In all of these cases, it is important for the plaintiff to work with an experienced personal injury lawyer who can help them build a strong case and present evidence that effectively refutes the defendant’s argument of contributory negligence.
In Contrast, How Does A Defendant In A PI Case Prove that The Plaintiff Is Partially Responsible Or More Than 50% Responsible?
The Law Office of Roger P. Foley does not represent defendants- We only represents victims of personal injury only, also referred to as Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Attorneys.
In a Accident case, a defendant can try to prove contributory negligence by arguing that the plaintiff’s actions contributed to their own injuries. If the defendant is successful in proving contributory negligence, the amount of compensation that the plaintiff is entitled to may be reduced, or the plaintiff may not receive any compensation at all. Here are some examples of how a defendant can prove contributory negligence:
1. Failure to Follow Safety Procedures: If the plaintiff did not follow safety procedures or did not take reasonable steps to prevent their own injuries, the defendant can argue that the plaintiff was partially accountable for their own damages. Specifically, if the plaintiff failed to wear their seatbelt in a car accident, the defendant or the accused party can contend that the claimant/plaintiff was partially responsible for their own harm.
2. Ignoring Warning Signs: If the plaintiff ignored warning signs or instructions, the defendant can argue that the plaintiff was partially responsible for their own injuries. Namely, if the plaintiff ignored warning signs indicating that a floor was wet and slipped and fell as a result, the defendant can argue that the plaintiff contributed to their own injuries.
3. Intoxication: If the plaintiff was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the accident, the defendant can argue that the plaintiff was partially responsible for their own injuries. In particular, if the plaintiff was driving under the influence and caused an accident, the defendant can argue that the plaintiff was partially responsible for their own injuries.
4. Distracted Driving: If the plaintiff was distracted while driving, the defendant can argue that the plaintiff was partially responsible for their own injuries. For instance, if the plaintiff was texting while driving and caused an accident, the defendant can argue that the plaintiff was partially responsible for their own injuries.
5. Assumption of Risk: If the plaintiff knowingly engaged in an activity that carried a risk of injury, the defendant can argue that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury and was partially responsible for their own injuries. To illustrate the point, if the plaintiff was injured while participating in a dangerous sport, the defendant can argue that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury.
If a defendant can successfully prove contributory negligence, the amount of compensation that the plaintiff is entitled to may be reduced, or the plaintiff may not receive any compensation at all. It is important for the plaintiff to work with an experienced courtroom advocate to build a strong case and refute any claims of contributory negligence.