- A+
??comparative negligence is a principle of tort law that applies to casualty insurance in certain states. comparative negligence states that when an accident occurs, the fault and/or negligence of each party involved is based upon their respective contributions to the accident. this allows insurers to assign blame and pay insurance claims accordingly.
key takeaways
-
comparative negligence is used to assign blame in auto accidents by determining or apportioning fault between the plaintiff and defendant in an accident.
damages for accidents are awarded proportionally based on degrees of determined negligence.
there are three types of comparative negligence rules—pure comparative negligence, modified comparative negligence, slight/gross negligence—followed by states in the u.s.
comparative negligence is most commonly used to assign blame in auto accidents. if two drivers both break the same traffic laws in an accident, then both may be denied their claims. many insurance carriers assign blame between drivers on a percentage basis, such as 70/30.
if two parties are involved in a car accident, the insurers use comparative negligence to assign fault. determining fault in an accident is a critical aspect of insurance. insurance companies litigate to ensure that they are only liable for damages caused by their insured client. in addition, defense lawyers will attempt to limit responsibility to the smallest extent possible. reviewing actions that led to an accident, insurers and the courts determine how to assign fault. that process is the essence of comparative negligence. the determination of fault will ultimately lead to deciding how 
much the insurer must pay.
the damages are awarded proportionally based on the degrees of determined negligence. the party who is found less responsible still has a percentage of the blame assigned to them. the percentage of negligence attached to the less responsible party is called contributory negligence. in the situation of a lawsuit resulting from a car accident, the contributory negligence would be the plaintiff’s failure to exercise reasonable care for their safety. in this relatively common situation, defendants use contributory negligence as a defense.
《元照英美法词典》：
比较过失
该术语是指在损害赔偿之诉中，将原告的过失与被告的过失进行比较，以减少被告应承担的赔偿份额。
它最早用于海事案件中，现美国许多州已用比较过失原则取代共同过失或混合过失原则[contributory negligence]。
一般而言，被告的过错程度越高，原告为获得赔偿所需的注意程度越低，但无论原告的过错如何，都不能完全免除被告的责任。
black’s law dictionary (10th edition)：
(1904) torts. the principle that reduces a plaintiff’s recovery proportionally to the plaintiff’s degree of fault in causing the damage, rather than barring recovery completely.
most states have statutorily adopted the comparative negligence doctrine.
比较过失，在美国侵权法中用comparative negligence来表达，是指通过比较原告被告双方的过错在整体过失责任中所占的比例来分配损害赔偿责任。如果原告的过错比较小，那么被告就要多赔，而如果原、被告的过错相当，或者原告的过错比较大，就要根据每一个州所采取的比较过失原则的具体种类来决定是否要赔偿，因为不同的州很可能采用的是不同类型的比较过失原则。
早在罗马法时期，法学家庞姆逢尼斯提出了著名的庞氏规则，即“若因自己的过错造成损害，不视为受害”。 应该说，罗马法的庞氏规则对普通法不无影响。早在1809年butterfield v. ward案中，美国法院第一次明确接受了共同过失原则作为被告免除责任的抗辩。 其理论依据是，被告的行为只是估计的原因，由于原告过失的介入，使因果关系发生了中断，因此被告应被免除赔偿责任。 应该说，共同过失的原则体现了对法律的公平理念的追求，但却又从一个极端走向另一个极端。在这种规则的作用下原告很可能因为轻微的疏忽大意而被拒绝于损害赔偿的大门之外，这使得共同过失原则有矫枉过正之嫌，因此受到了来自各方不同程度的批判。因此，法院在适用共同过失原则时也表现得非常勉强。例如：除非被告提出这个问题，否则将不被考虑在案情内；除非被告有充分的证据证明原告的过失，否则共同过失原则不适用；法院通常会把共同过失的存在与否作为事实问题，把它们交给陪审团，而陪审团通常会比较同情原告的遭遇做出对其更有利的裁定等。
随着时代的发展和社会的进步，人们对法律的公平理念的认识也越来越深刻。越来越多的人感到在共同过失原则对侵权诉讼中的原告来说实在太苛刻，法院在不愿意救济“不洁之手”（unclean hands）的同时实际上也断绝了许多只犯有微小过错却遭受了巨大损失的原告获得合理经济补偿的途径。于是美国的法院尝试寻找一种新的办法——比较过失原则来解决问题。比较过失原则最早是由1855年乔治亚州通过成文法采纳，在1919年得到了密西西比州的支持，随后在二十世纪中期被广泛接受，最终得到了45个州的采纳。 相对来说，比较过失原则的出现是缓慢的，而且通过分析我们可以看到不同的州对比较过失原则的态度有所差别，这也是法律发展过程中的必然现象。
通常来说，比较过失原则主要有三种类型：第一种是纯粹的比较过失（pure comparative negligence），采取这种类型，原告均可以获得部分赔偿，具体的赔偿数额与原告过失程度（在导致损害的总过失中所占比例）成反比；第二种是修正了的比较过失（modified comparative negligence），采取这种类型，原告如果想获得赔偿，其过失在总过失中所占的比例必须小于（49%上限理论）或不大于（50%上限理论）被告；第三种是比较过失轻重方法（slight-gross approach）,采用这种类型，不用具体的数字，只有法院认定原告的过失与被告相比要轻微时，原告才可以获得赔偿。目前，美国有13个州 采纳了纯粹比较过失方法，有30个州 采取了修正比较过失方法，其中21个州采取了50%上限理论，此外还有2个州 采用了比较过失轻重方法。
下面结合例句来看：
例1.
comparative negligence comes into play when it is contended that two or more parties failed to perform at the standard of the “ordinary reasonable person”.
如果两方或两方以上当事人都没有达到“普通理性人”的标准时，就需要运用比较过失原则。
例2.
the california courts introduced comparative negligence into california with a judicially creative decision in li v. yellow cab co. (1975).
加利福尼亚州法院在1975年“李诉黄记出租车公司”一案中以创造性的判决将比较过失原则引入了加州。
例3.
not all states use comparative negligence, and some states still use contributory negligence which denies recovery to any party whose negligence has added to the cause of the accident in any way.
不是所有的州都运用比较过失原则，有的州仍然采用与有过失。如果采用与有过失原则，那么对事故原因有过失的一方当事人不能得到任何赔偿。????
