In Washington, D.C., in order to recover compensation for an injury due to the carelessness of a third party, we must prove all four elements of negligence. The standard of proof for each element is by a preponderance of the evidence. This means we must prove that it is more likely than not that the facts we allege did occur. If we can do this, we will generally be successful. However, there are many defenses available to a tortfeasor. In DC, a defendant may allege a contributory negligence defense. This is a total bar to recovery for a plaintiff if the defendant successfully proves that the plaintiff contributed to the accident. Like a plaintiff, the burden is on the defendant to prove this defense. This is known as an affirmative defense.
As it is a complete defense for the tortfeasor, every plaintiff must consider it before trial. But what is contributory negligence? Contributory negligence is a legal doctrine that prevents an injured party from recovering compensation if they are found minimally at fault for the accident. This is true even if we can prove with certainty that the defendant is the proximate cause of your injury. It is a harsh rule and only exists in five U.S. jurisdictions. This rule’s decisiveness and limiting nature make retaining the best possible legal representation for your personal injury claim vital. We can explain to you whether you have a case worth pursuing before you decide to invest thousands of dollars into pursuing a claim. Moreover, by hiring a personal injury law firm, these costs are advanced by the firm. So you do not have to worry about expenses and just focus on your recovery.
Key Differences Between Contributory and Comparative Negligence
Comparative and contributory negligence are the two primary categories of limitation in a personal injury matter. Comparative negligence can be further divided into two categories: pure comparative negligence and modified negligence. While neither standard exists in DC at this time, the hope is that one day it will. Under the pure comparative negligence rule, the state allows the plaintiff to claim damages for the 1% they are not at fault, even when they are 99% at fault, according to a jury. However, this example is a bit silly. If you are 1% not at fault, you are 99% at fault. Thus, if you sue the defendant for $100,000 in damages, you are legally entitled to $1,000, or 1% of the damages you suffer. Only 12 states follow this rule, although over twice as many follow contributory negligence. States that follow this rule include New York, Florida, and California.
Then, there is modified comparative negligence. This rule is followed in the majority of states and makes the most logical sense. This rule allows you to recover only if you are less than 50% at fault. It finds a happy medium between the harshness of contributory negligence and the free-for-all found in pure comparative negligence jurisdictions. The five jurisdictions that follow a contributory negligence standard include North Carolina, Alabama, Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.
Impact of Contributory Negligence on Personal Injury Cases
Contributory negligence can have a tremendous impact on a personal injury case. Where a plaintiff may be able to recover $100,000s or even millions in one state, may be unable to recover a penny in a contributory negligence jurisdiction. In our practice, we have spoken to pedestrian accident victims who were injured walking on the sidewalk. One example in particular stands out. The older pedestrian was walking down the sidewalk and stepped onto an uncovered part of the sidewalk. The District of Columbia was on notice of this dangerous condition and thus was liable for any injuries resulting from it. However, a contributory negligence defense is available in this example. Ultimately, it is a question for the jury whether the older pedestrian shares any responsibility. The DC government would argue that the older individual should have seen the hazardous condition but failed to do so.
This act may be negligent. Under the negligence standard in Washington, DC, if the jury determines the pedestrian to be even 1% negligent and the government is 99% negligent, then there can be no recovery. Of course, this rule applies to all types of personal injury cases. It applies to car accidents, truck accidents, slip-and-falls, and any other instance of negligence. However, it is not a defense for intentional acts found at nightclubs or bars. If the defendant acts negligently, contributory negligence does not impact your injury claim because your cause of action is not rooted in negligence but in an intentional tort.
Exceptions to Contributory Negligence in D.C.
There is one true exception to contributory negligence. In some instances, contributory negligence does not apply where it otherwise would. These are defined in DC statutes and apply in some pedestrian and bicycle accident cases. But in most cases, we aim to prevent the defendant from establishing a contributory negligence defense. If they can do this, we have one option remaining.
Last Clear Chance Doctrine
The last clear chance doctrine represents the single exception to contributory negligence. This doctrine permits a victim to recover despite his own contributory negligence. Under this rule, the person with the last clear chance to avoid an accident who fails to do so is liable for negligence. This acts as a rebuttal against the defense of contributory negligence and is a powerful tool in winning compensation you need to pay costly medical bills for an accident you did not cause.
There is a classic example of the last clear chance that you should be aware of. Suppose that you carelessly park your car on train tracks. Your car is on the tracks for hours, and it is your fault that it is there. Your car did not break down; you are careless and do not realize where your vehicle is. However, the train engineer is also careless for not stopping the train when he has sufficient time to do so. The question then becomes, who has the last clear chance to avoid the accident? Caslaw has consistently shown that the train engineer has the last clear chance to stop the train in this scenario. Accordingly, the train conductor and his employer are liable for the injuries sustained in the accident, not the person who owns the vehicle.
Why You Need a Personal Injury Lawyer in D.C.
For several reasons, you need a personal injury lawyer in DC to handle any contributory negligence defenses. Firstly, the law surrounding defenses against personal injury claims is complex. Moreover, even if you can prove liability, maximizing the value of your claim can be tricky. You can take steps to increase the value of your case and, at least, preserve its value by complying with statutes and taking steps.
Our attorneys will help you collect evidence, interview witnesses, and present arguments to avoid a contributory negligence finding. This will ensure you have the best chance of securing just compensation. Without legal representation, the adverse insurance company will attempt to catch you by asking you tricky questions in recorded interviews. These statements fall under hearsay exceptions, are admissible at trial, and will be used against you to avoid liability.
Call our office today for a free consultation and case evaluation at (202) 331-7227.
