Our state follows a strict legal doctrine known as “pure contributory negligence” in personal injury cases. This rule has significant implications for involved in car accidents and any other personal injury case because it often leads to outcomes that can seem particularly severe for injured plaintiffs.
Under this rule, if a court finds that a plaintiff was partly at fault for the accident in which they were injured, they can be barred from recovering damages through a personal injury lawsuit. This means that if a plaintiff was injured in a car accident and they are later found to have contributed to that car accident in any way, no matter how minimal, they cannot receive compensation.
Examples
For instance, if someone is involved in a car accident and is found to have been speeding, they could be denied any damages, even if the other driver was predominantly at fault. Another example is a jaywalker who is involved in a pedestrian accident. If a pedestrian is hit by a car, but was jaywalking at the time, they could be entirely barred from recovering any damages, regardless of the driver’s negligence.
The challenges of contributory negligence
As these examples show, the pure contributory negligence rule is harsh. It places a heavy burden on plaintiffs to prove that they had no fault whatsoever in the incident. This is in stark contrast to the more lenient “comparative negligence” rules followed by most other states. In those states, a plaintiff can still recover some damages even if they were partially at fault.
Exception for common carriers
One important exception to the contributory negligence rule involves common carriers, such as buses and trains. If a common carrier is negligent, and that negligence leads to injury, the plaintiff’s own negligence does not necessarily bar recovery. This exception acknowledges the higher duty of care owed by these carriers to their passengers.
Conclusion
Understanding Virginia’s pure contributory negligence rule is crucial for anyone involved in a personal injury case in the state. This rule can be unforgiving, which makes it essential for plaintiffs to fully grasp their legal standing and potential challenges. Knowing the exceptions, such as those involving common carriers, can also provide a clearer picture of one’s legal options.