Montana’s Comparative Negligence Rule

Montana’s Comparative Negligence Rule is a fundamental principle of law that governs the way plaintiffs and defendants are held liable for a negligent act. Comparative negligence allows an injured party to be compensated for their losses based on the degree to which they were at fault for the incident. Depending on the severity of the negligence, the other parties involved in the incident may be held liable to some extent.

In Montana, comparative negligence generally follows the “modified comparative negligence” rule. This rule divides comparative negligence into two categories: pure comparative negligence and modified comparative negligence. Under pure comparative negligence, a plaintiff can still recover damages if they are more than 50% at fault—in other words, their compensation is reduced to reflect their percentage of negligence. Under modified comparative negligence, a plaintiff may only recover damages if their negligence is less than that of the defendant’s—so if the plaintiff is 51% or more at fault, they will be precluded from recovering any damages.

In Montana, whether a party is subject to comparative negligence depends on the fact-finder—typically a jury—who must determine the amount of negligence to assign to the parties. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to show that the defendant was at least partially negligent. The plaintiff’s negligence is then weighed against the defendant’s, and if the plaintiff is found to be less negligent than the defendant, the plaintiff can recover damages.

In a Montana negligence case, damages are calculated based on the degree to which each party is responsible for causing the injury. If the defendant is held liable for the injury, their liability is reduced by the plaintiff’s negligence. That is, the defendant’s damages are limited to the amount they would have been obligated to pay if the plaintiff had been 100% without fault.

It is important to note that some damages are nondeductible, meaning that the liability cannot be reduced by the plaintiff’s negligence. These types of damages usually include medical expenses, pain, and suffering, mental anguish, and lost wages.

The comparative negligence rule has many implications in Montana law. For example, in a civil court case, the defendant’s liability is limited to the damages that would have been imposed had the plaintiff been found to be 100% without fault. In addition, a comparative negligence finding affects any punitive damages that may be awarded. In a punitive damages case, a plaintiff can only recover these damages if their negligence is less than the defendant’s.

The comparative negligence rule is a powerful tool for an injured party to seek compensation from a negligent party, but it also serves as a reminder that negligence is a two-way street. An injured party should take care to protect themselves, and when necessary, contact an experienced attorney to ensure their rights are protected. Similarly, a negligent party should be aware of the legal implications of their actions and make sure they have proper liability insurance coverage in case they are found liable for the injury.