Louisiana’s Comparative Negligence Rule

Introduction
Louisiana’s Comparative Negligence Rule is a legal standard that applies when two or more parties are liable for a plaintiff’s injury. The rule determines how blame and financial responsibility between the parties should be allocated and how the court should allocate damages. The rule has been in effect in Louisiana since 1988 and has greatly impacted civil liability law in Louisiana. In this article, we will discuss the origins of the Comparative Negligence Rule in Louisiana, explore the potential positive and negative effects of the rule, and explain how an injured party can use the rule to their advantage.

Origins of Louisiana’s Comparative Negligence Rule

The Comparative Negligence Rule in Louisiana was created as a way to provide fair compensation for those injured due to the actions of multiple parties. Prior to the rule, Louisiana courts would assign full liability to any single person who was found legally liable for an injury, regardless of the degree of the person’s responsibility. This was known as the “all-or-nothing” doctrine and had the potential to limit the amount of restitution an injured party could receive from a negligent party or parties.

In 1988, lawmakers in Louisiana decided to adopt the Comparative Negligence Rule as a way to give judges more discretion when allocating damages in civil liability cases. Under the rule, courts must consider how much responsibility each party holds for an injury and make rulings based on that assessment. The court can assign any percentage of liability to each party as long as the percentages total 100%. If a court determines that a plaintiff is partially liable for their injury, the amount of compensation they can receive from the defendants will be reduced accordingly.

Positive and Negative Effects of Louisiana’s Comparative Negligence Rule

The Comparative Negligence Rule has had both positive and negative effects on Louisiana civil liability law. On the positive side, the rule allows judges greater discretion when deciding how to allocate damages in civil liability cases. Before the rule was established, judges were limited to assigning full liability to a single person, which could lead to unfair outcomes and limited restitution for an injured party. With the introduction of the rule, judges are able to more accurately assess the level of liability between multiple parties and thus provide fairer compensation for those injured.

On the other hand, some have argued that the rule creates an incentive for plaintiffs to manipulate the outcome of their case. For example, a plaintiff may be partially or fully liable for their injury, but can argue that the other defendants are wholly liable in order to receive a larger amount of compensation. Under the Comparative Negligence Rule, a court may find the plaintiff partially liable for their injury and reduce the amount of restitution they can receive from a negligent party or parties.

Using Louisiana’s Comparative Negligence Rule to Your Advantage

If you are facing a civil liability lawsuit in Louisiana, it is important to understand the implications of the Comparative Negligence Rule and how it can potentially impact your ability to receive compensation for your injury. The first step is to understand your legal rights and responsibilities under Louisiana law and how the rule can affect your case. It is also important to explore any potential avenues that could allow you to recover more damages, such as negotiating with defendants or finding additional evidence to support your case.

Conclusion

Louisiana’s Comparative Negligence Rule has had both positive and negative effects on civil liability law in the state. The rule allows judges greater discretion when deciding how to allocate damages in cases involving multiple parties. However, some have argued that the rule has the potential to create an incentive for plaintiffs to manipulate the outcome of their case. If you are facing a civil liability lawsuit in Louisiana, it is important to understand the implications of the rule and how it can impact the outcome of your case.