Contributory Negligence Doctrine
Some states, though, still use the contributory negligence doctrine when evaluating negligence in a tort. Alabama, for instance, has not adopted this. In Williams v. Delta Int'l Machinery Corp., 619 So.2d 1330, 1333 (Ala. 1993), the court said: " exhaustive study and these lengthy deliberations, the majority of this Court, for various reasons, has decided that we should not abandon the doctrine of contributory negligence, which has been the law in Alabama for approximately 162 years." Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. continue to use contributory negligence as well.
Neither comparative negligence nor contributory negligence should be confused with joint and several liability which generally holds each of two or more culpable defendants responsible for all the damages sustained by a plaintiff. For practical reasons, a plaintiff who faces the defense of comparative negligence may wish to join all potentially culpable defendants in his action because the plaintiff's negligence will be balanced against the combined negligence of all defendants in apportioning damages, even though the plaintiff may not be able actually to get compensation from some of them--for example where an insolvent individual and a major corporation were both negligent in causing plaintiff's harm.
Read more about this topic: Comparative Negligence
Famous quotes containing the words contributory, negligence and/or doctrine:
““Love as a force contributory to disease.””
—Thomas Mann (1875–1955)
“The youngest of four sons, but not the youngest of the family!—you conceive the sort of negligence that creeps over even the kindest maternities, in such case ...”
—Walter Pater (1839–1894)
“For the poet the credo or doctrine is not the point of arrival but is, on the contrary, the point of departure for the metaphysical journey.”
—Joseph Brodsky (b. 1940)