New Hampshire’s Comparative Negligence Rule
New Hampshire’s law of comparative negligence provides an effective and beneficial resolution to disputes involving personal injury claims. Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine that assigns a percentage of liability to each party involved in a personal injury claim based on their responsibility and role in the accident. New Hampshire’s comparative negligence rule applies in both contributory negligence and comparative negligence states, meaning that the liability of each party can be allocated separately. This article explores New Hampshire’s comparative negligence rule and examines how it could affect your personal injury case.
New Hampshire is one of several states that have adopted a comparative negligence statute as an alternative to contributory negligence doctrine. Under the contributory negligence doctrine, a plaintiff can only recover damages if they can prove that the defendant was wholly at fault for the injury. Such an approach is often criticized for being overly strict and for failing to take into account any mitigation of damages by either party. On the other hand, the comparative negligence rule in New Hampshire allows parties to recoup damages even when some of the responsibility for the accident lies with them. Depending on the amount of fault assigned to each party, the amount of compensation awarded may be reduced accordingly.
The comparative negligence rule in New Hampshire is a bit more complex than certain other states. In a pure comparative negligence state, a party can recover damages even if they are primarily responsible for the accident. However, in New Hampshire and other modified comparative negligence jurisdictions, a plaintiff is barred from recovering any damages if they are found to be more than 50% at fault for the accident. In other words, if a jury determines that the plaintiff is more than 50% at fault, they will not be eligible to receive any damages. As an example, if a jury found that the plaintiff was 40% at fault and the defendant was 60% at fault, the plaintiff would only be able to receive 60% of the damages for their injury or losses.
When determining the amount of fault for each party, New Hampshire juries take into account a variety of different factors. These include: whether or not the defendant breached their duty of care; the degree of negligence; and any contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The jury is made up of five members and all five have to unanimously agree on who should be assigned the fault and what percentage of fault should be assigned. Additionally, juries in New Hampshire are instructed to consider how each party was behaving at the time of the accident, whether they were engaging in reckless or negligent behavior, as well as any mitigating factors that might affect the degree of fault assigned to each party.
Despite the complexities surrounding New Hampshire’s comparative negligence rule, it is an important tool in resolving personal injury cases. It allows juries to examine the facts and details of a particular case in order to fairly assign fault and make a much more accurate determination of damages. In certain cases where contributory negligence would be too harsh, the comparative negligence rule allows for more leniency.
Overall, New Hampshire’s comparative negligence rule provides an important alternative to contributory negligence doctrine. It allows for a more equitable allocation of fault and allows parties to recoup damages even if some of the responsibility for the accident lies with them. In any personal injury case, it is important to be aware of the law of comparative negligence and how it could affect the outcome of one’s case.
