Contributory Negligence Case Study

575 Words2 Pages

The General Assembly should vote to change the current law of contributory negligence. It is not completely fair and is too strict. Comparative negligence is a better system because money is given for the percentage the person is not at fault. The pure comparative system should be put in place due to many other states already using it. Few states still use the pure contributory negligence and that is for a good reason. A person can still receive some compensatory damages in the comparative negligence system. I believe that is why around 45 states use comparative negligence for determining fault between two parties in tort suits. North Carolina needs to come to term with the present. Comparative law has been rejected in house or committee which has not allowed it to pass to become a law. Most of the tries to push contributory negligence out of law has only been two or three votes away. The people who opposed it believe that it will cause insurance premiums to rise heavily. They claim it would cost the government …show more content…

Even though there is so much known criticism of the system, they use this to continue the system even when 46 other states rejected the doctrine. Supreme Court claims nothing is settled unless it is done right. They recognize the importance of trends in common law. This urges the acceptance of the comparative negligence doctrine. Since there are so many modifications to the harsh rule of contributory, why not have a switch in the system? Although in the past there was rationality for the four rationales of contributory, these cannot survive scrutiny in the present. It can no longer be said that the negligent plaintiff brought the injury onto himself. Both parties actually brought the injuries. So why not use the stare decisis rules to examine the common laws and reconsider the rejection of contributory negligence. As of now there are no statutes that prevent its

Open Document