Massachusetts’s Comparative Negligence Rule
The doctrine of comparative negligence is an important concept of legal liability in the United States. It is a system of apportioning damages and fault between the parties based on their relative degree of negligence. In almost every state in the United States, the rule of comparative negligence applies to personal injury claims. The decision of each court and state varies slightly, however Massachusetts applies a modified version of the pure comparative negligence rule, known as the “Massachusetts Default Rule.” Under this rule, a plaintiff who is considered responsible for more than 50% of the damages they seek, cannot recover any damages. This article will examine the Massachusetts Default Rule and its application in the state.
First, it is important to understand the basics of the doctrine of comparative negligence, as it is the foundation for the rule in Massachusetts. Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine used in personal injury cases that assigns a portion of the fault for an individual’s injury to each party involved. It allows a plaintiff to recover damages even if they are partially responsible for the incident, just so long as the defendant is considered more responsible. While some states, such as California, apply the pure version of the rule, most states like Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania, employ the modified version. Under this doctrine, a plaintiff is only allowed to collect damages so long as their negligence is under 50%.
The Massachusetts Default Rule, or rule of modified comparative negligence, takes the principle of comparative negligence and applies it to personal injury cases in Massachusetts. Under the default rule, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant was more negligent than the plaintiff in order to recover damages. To do this, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s negligence was the primary cause of the plaintiff’s injury. In some states, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, while in Massachusetts, the burden of proof lies with the defendant. If the defendant is less negligent than the plaintiff, then the case is dismissed and the plaintiff does not recover any damages.
For example, if a person is injured when a ladder they were using slipped and caused them to fall, the defendant might be able to prove that the plaintiff was negligent since they failed to properly secure the ladder. As a result, they would be barred from recovering any damages.
In addition to barring any damages when the plaintiff is more negligent than the defendant, the Massachusetts Default Rule also mandates that the damages are to be reduced when the plaintiff is found to be partially responsible. This reduction is known as a percentage of fault liability, which means that the amount of damages a plaintiff can recover reduces in proportion to their degree of negligence or fault. For example, if a jury determines that the plaintiff was 30% responsible for his or her injuries, the plaintiff will only be able to recover 70% of the damages requested.
The purpose of the Massachusetts Default Rule is to ensure that damages awards reflect the amount of negligence of each party. According to the rule, the defendant must bear the majority of the responsibility for the plaintiff’s injury, but the plaintiff must also take responsibility for their own actions. In this way, the Massachusetts Default Rule allows the court to assess and assign fault according to the facts of the case and ensures that the damages awarded are equitable.
Overall, the Massachusetts Default Rule is an important concept of legal liability in the state of Massachusetts. It allows the court to apportion damages and fault according to the degree of negligence of each party and provides a way for plaintiffs to recover damages even if they are partially responsible. This modified version of the comparative negligence rule helps to ensure that the damages awarded in a personal injury case are equitable and reflect the degree of responsibility of each side.
