Our fight against Contributory Negligence
This is one of those things that you have no reason to ever know about until it’s on your face sucking the life out of you. Being in the field of personal injury law, I’m acutely aware of it and the debilitating effect it has on injured parties. Since most of you won’t have any insight into this undead hangover from English Commonlaw (the same people who brought us the stocks and witch drowning) I thought it worthwhile to give you a little insight.
Since there’s a great deal of information about this available from the NC Advocates for Justice, I have taken the liberty of using their verbiage when appropriate…
Our state is one of only four that clings to contributory negligence, a harsh and outdated way of denying help to people hurt in accidents. Under “contrib,” even if you are only 1% percent responsible for an accident, you cannot recover damages from someone 99% responsible.
Comparative fault, used in 46 states, allows people to recover damages from those most responsible for causing an accident. It’s a far more fair system than what have currently.
The bipartisan House Bill 813 aims to introduce comparative fault as the new and improved law of the land. But lobbyists are trying to stop this change by distorting the facts. Unlike what lobbyists say, neighboring states with comparative fault have seen premium rates slow down.
We encourage you to visit http://www.fairjusticenc.com/ to learn more and to stand up to the lobbyists.
Here are some good examples of how the doctrine can work:
In 1995, Cecil Stanley was a former collegiate athlete turned special education teacher who worked two jobs just to spoil his beloved wife with a cruise for their 25th anniversary. While painting a local gymnasium, Cecil tried to avoid harming his employee while moving a ladder and fell into an unmarked, outdated high voltage electrical wire that was uninsulated and extremely dangerous. Cecil died that morning from the injuries sustained by the shock. At trial, the jury found the power company who installed and managed the wire for decades to be negligent by maintaining the wire so close to the gym. They also found that Cecil was partly to blame for his death and, under the harsh, blame the victim contributory negligence policy, his family was awarded nothing.
Here’s a hypothetical example: A truck runs a red light and hits your car, totaling the car and fracturing your skull. You ask the truck driver’s insurance company to pay for your car, medical bills and lost wages. The insurance company decides that the truck driver was 90 percent at fault for running the red light and that you were 10 percent at fault for slightly speeding. In North Carolina, with “contrib,” the insurance company pays you nothing. With comparative fault, you would receive compensation, reduced by 10 percent for your small share of the fault.
I recently lost a case myself in Orange County based on Contributory Negligence. I represented a tiny little lady who had lived all of her 65 years in Hillsborough. She bought a bedroom set from an Alamance Co. furniture company and they sent workers to set it up. During the course of setting it up, they asked her how she wanted the bed situated. When she moved in the room to show them, the monstrous foot board of the bed that they had leaned against the wall without any securing mechanism fell on her, causing her to break BOTH of her arms. The trial judge granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that my client’s entering the room while they were working was enough to demonstrate her own negligence as a matter of law. Furniture company with slack employees - no loss; nice old lady who tried to answer their question - two broken arms, medical bills out the wazoo, surgery, steel rods, and lost time with her grandchildren. Does that seem fair?
With comparative fault, compensation suits settle quickly, allowing people hurt in accidents to get the help they need. Tell your representatives you’re ready for a fair shake.
