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)