Car Accident Lawyers in Columbus, Ohio

Q: How do you make personal injury attorneys in Columbus angry?

A: Mention a contributory negligence clause.

Contributory negligence has been a majorly contentious issue for legal jurists across the USA with the overwhelming consensus being that is a highly unjust policy that seeks to pander the petty expectations of academia rather than the victims or their representatives. In its unmodified and original form, contributory negligence specifically precluded any person who was even remotely responsible for their own injuries to be eligible to claim for any degree of damages.

In short, the contributory negligence defence forced a highly arbitrary and unfair "all or nothing" mentality within personal injury lawsuits causing some highly controversial and unjust decisions and precedents to be made.

On the other end of the spectrum were those lawyers and attorneys who worked for the car manufacturers, bus companies and trucking hauling firms who habitually relied upon the contributory negligence defence so frequently that it almost became their stock catchphrase. Oftentimes, given the sheer potency of this defence, there would be no other requirement upon the part of the attorney to offer any other form of defence to mitigate liability.

Taken its most literal level and the strictest interpretation then, a driver who suffered a sneezing fit or coughing fit whilst they were driving who was involved with an accident with a driver who was driving whilst under the influence of alcohol or drugs and 4 times over the speed limit would not get compensation.

It would not matter how severe the injuries were that the victim sustained, it would not matter how much money he was required to pay out for his healthcare, or as a result of him missing his work. The mere fact he had a role (albeit a fractional one) in his own injury is, under the traditional contributory negligence rule, enough to disbar him.

Many attorneys have rather eloquently described the contributory negligence defence as that:

"the idea that seems right in a textbook, but which ultimately prejudices those it should serve to protect."

Therefore, this unfairly strict rule has been relaxed somewhat and so new reforms have been introduced across the States although the actual degree of reform has varied significantly.  In more liberal states, there has been the introduction of "comparative negligence" whereby the fault and liability of the victim is brought into question, and then used to reduce their eligibility for compensation.

The crucial difference between comparative and contributory negligence is that the comparative form will reduce, rather than eliminate the amount of compensation owed to the victim. Therefore, if a victim is deemed to have been 40% responsible for their injuries and the final pay out stands at a total of $ 1 million dollars then they would receive a maximum of $ 600,000.

Given how difficult and challenging it can be to fairly calculate and apportion blame in this manner, it is essential that you rely upon attorneys who have plenty of experience in this highly demanding area of law to ensure you get the best possible outcome.