Pennsylvania’s Comparative Negligence Rule

Introduction

Pennsylvania’s comparative negligence rule is one of the most important and widely applicable laws in the state. It determines the limits of legal liability in the event of any untoward accidents that result in injury or death. In general, it states that if the victim of an accident is found to have shared some responsibility for their injuries, then their claim for damages will be lowered in proportion to their degree of fault. This rule has been adopted by courts all over the country, not just in Pennsylvania, and is designed to ensure that plaintiffs become only partially responsible for injuries or harm caused by another party’s negligence.

Definition of ‘Comparative Negligence Rule’

The comparative negligence rule is a legal standard used in Pennsylvania to assign fault when an accident causes injury or death. Under the rule, each individual who is involved in a given incident is assigned a percentage of fault, and the damages awarded to the injured person or estate of the deceased will be reduced by this amount, leaving them the lesser amount. For instance, if a person is found to be 20 percent responsible for an accident, then the amount of damages they will be awarded will be reduced by 20 percent.

Essentially, comparative negligence is a way of quantifying an injured party’s responsibility in an accident, as a means of preventing them from recovering damages that they could be held partially accountable for. It’s often used in personal injury cases, in which a plaintiff is responsible for a certain percentage of the damages.

Historical Development of the Comparative Negligence Rule In Pennsylvania

The comparative negligence rule was first adopted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 1983 in the case Murray v. Allstate Insurance Company. In this case, the court followed the “ modified comparative negligence” system, which had already been adopted by many other states as well. This system allows a plaintiff to recover damages as long as their negligence did not exceed that of the defendant’s.

Since then, multiple Pennsylvania statutes have adopted a version of the comparative negligence rule, which is now widely applied in court cases across the state. For instance, the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law provides that in the case of any “accident involving motor vehicles” (or any crash involving a collision with a motor vehicle).

The effect of the comparative negligence rule has also been expanded to include not just traditional motor vehicle collisions, but also situations involving medical malpractice and product liability, as well as other cases involving negligent behavior leading to injury or death.

Applicability of the Comparative Negligence Rule

The comparative negligence rule is applicable in both civil and criminal court cases in Pennsylvania. In civil court, the rule is used to assign fault in the event of a auto accident and to decide the amount of damages that the plaintiff shall receive for any injury and property damage sustained. In criminal court, the comparative negligence rule is used to limit the extent of punishment for negligent acts, as when someone is convicted of involuntary manslaughter after being only partially responsible for the death of another person.

The comparative negligence rule is also applicable in situations where liability is shared by multiple parties, such as when both driver in a car crash are found to be at fault. In such cases, the court will typically apportion liability according to the percentage of fault assigned to each in the accident.

Conclusion

The comparative negligence rule is an important part of Pennsylvania’s civil and criminal legal framework. It is used to determine liability and assign fault in cases of accident or injury, in order to ensure that victims receive the amount they deserve, while mitigating their responsibility if they were partially at fault. This is a useful tool to help assign responsibility and damages according to what is fair, and to ensure that victims of an accident are not unjustly compensated or otherwise penalized in court.