Washington’s Comparative Negligence Rule
Washington’s comparative negligence rule is a legal principle that judges use to determine liability for damage or injuries sustained in a civil case. The rule allows for fault to be assigned to both parties involved in the dispute and used to compute the amount of damages each should bear. Washington was one of the first states to adopt a comparative negligence rule and has since become an outlier among U.S. states for its more lenient standards of liability. The comparative negligence rule has been explored in various court decisions and legal opinions, and there are several nuances of the rule which attorneys must be aware of in order to understand its implications.
At its core, the comparative negligence rule requires the parties in a civil case to assume some responsibility for the outcome of the dispute. In Washington and many other states, a plaintiff can still receive damages even if they are partially at fault for the injuries or damages endured. Rather than have the right to recover damages extinguished completely, the plaintiff’s awards are reduced in proportion to their responsibility for the incident. For example, if the plaintiff is found to have been 15% at fault in a dispute, the amount of damages they can receive is reduced by 15%. This approach is a significant departure from the traditional rule of law (known as the “all or nothing” rule) which would bar any recovery from a plaintiff who was found to be partially at fault for damages.
The comparative negligence rule, as applied in Washington, allows for both the plaintiff and defendant to share partial fault for the injury. Critically, however, Washington does not use the “pure” comparative negligence system which other states employ. Under pure comparative negligence, a plaintiff can recover some damages, even if they are found to be primarily at fault. In Washington, however, plaintiffs cannot recover damages when they are found to be 51% or more at fault. This is referred to as the “50% bar rule,” and it is meant to strike a balance between plaintiff relief and ensuring defendants are not unjustly liable for additional damages.
In some cases, there may be more than two parties involved in a dispute. In such cases, judicial bodies may rely on a number of different legal tools, such as comparative negligence and contributory negligence, to determine liability for damages. The two main differences between the two rules are that comparative negligence allows for a plaintiff’s recovery to be reduced based on their level of fault, whereas contributory negligence bars a plaintiff from recovering any damages whatsoever if they are found to be partially at fault.
In addition to the importance of understanding the nuances of the general comparative negligence rule, there are some important cases that attorneys should be aware of in Washington. One such case is Doe v. Zunger. In this case, the court affirmed the 50% bar rule in Washington, but noted that this rule was not static and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. This case also established the legal principle that plaintiffs can collect damages that are proportional to the percentage of fault they are shown to have, which is an important distinction as it allows for a deeper level of jury discretion.
Washington’s comparative negligence rule is an important legal tool which can be used to assign fault for damages in civil cases. It is important for attorneys to understand both the nuances of the rule itself, as well as how the courts have analyzed and applied it. By doing so, attorneys can better help their clients in the event of a dispute and ensure that the most appropriate outcome is obtained.
