Ohio’s Comparative Negligence Law
Background
“Negligence” is the failure to exercise the degree of
care required of a reasonable and prudent person in any given circumstance
resulting in injury or damage to another. Ohio adopted a comparative
negligence law in 1980. Prior to 1980, Ohio law was based on contributory
negligence, which stated that any party guilty of negligence, to
any degree, was unable to achieve recovery.
The concept of comparative negligence is to allow damage recovery
reduced by a person’s own percentage of negligence. Ohio’s
comparative negligence law specifies that if a party is more than
50% at fault, recovery is not allowed. Most often the law applies
to auto accident cases, but it can apply to homeowners and business
operations also.
How comparative negligence works
In order to have a clear understanding of how comparative negligence
works, it’s necessary to contrast it with contributory negligence.
Under the old contributory negligence law, an injured driver somewhat
negligent in an auto accident could not recover his losses even
if the negligence was very minor in comparison with that of the
other driver. For example, if driver 1 was 20% at fault and driver
2 was 80% at fault, driver 1 could not be compensated for his medical
costs, auto repairs, etc., from driver 2 since he was somewhat at
fault.
Under Ohio’s current comparative negligence law, parties share
the cost of damages from an accident in proportion to their share
of negligence. An injured driver judged to be 50% or less at fault
may recover his damages minus the percent caused by his own negligence.
If more than 50% negligent, there would be no recovery for losses
from the other party. Applying comparative negligence to the example
in the previous paragraph, driver 1 could recover 80% of his damages
(100% minus his 20% negligence) from the other party. Driver 2 would
receive no compensation from driver 1 since driver 2 was more than
50% negligent (80%).
Applying comparative negligence to claims
This law most often applies to auto insurance cases. When involved
in collisions, motorists find that insurance companies must investigate
the factual circumstances to determine the degree of negligence
of all parties in each case. In auto insurance cases, although a
police report is one important source of information, it may not
supply all the information necessary to determine the negligence
of the parties involved in the accident. Accident witnesses and
what a reasonable person would have done in the situation may be
as important as the fact that the driver was cited for a violation
of motor vehicle laws.
Comparative negligence situations can arise when filing a claim
with the other driver’s insurance company. Sometimes parties
don’t agree on their share of negligence. An alternative to
negotiating with the other driver’s insurance company is to
file the claim with your insurance company, which allows your insurer
to take over negotiations with the other party and could speed the
claims settlement process.
 |
Tillinghast-Towers Perrin estimates
that in 1999, the total annual cost of the American tort system
was $165 billion, or 2% of the nation’s gross domestic
product.
(Business Week, 1/29/01) |
|
