Comparative negligence can significantly impact the outcome of complex premises liability cases. This legal standard helps to shape how fault is allocated and whether an injured person can recover damages.
While both Pennsylvania and New Jersey follow modified comparative negligence systems, the threshold for recovery differs in a way that can significantly affect the outcome of a particular case.
One percent can make all the difference
In Pennsylvania, the law applies a 51% bar rule to comparative negligence scenarios. This means an injured person can recover damages as long as they are not more than 50% at fault for their own harm. If a plaintiff is found 51% or more responsible for their own injuries, recovery is barred. If they are 50% or less at fault, their compensation is reduced in proportion to their share of responsibility.
New Jersey uses a slightly stricter standard known as the 50% bar rule. Under this approach, a plaintiff can only recover if they are less than 50% at fault. If they are found to be 50% or more responsible, they are barred from recovering any damages. This distinction, though subtle, can be decisive in close cases where fault is heavily disputed.
In both states, a plaintiff’s conduct can reduce or eliminate liability. Courts examine whether an injured person acted reasonably under the circumstances. For example, a customer who is texting while walking and fails to notice an obvious hazard may be assigned a portion of fault. Similarly, ignoring clearly posted warning signs, such as “wet floor” notices, can shift responsibility away from a property owner.
For business owners and property managers, documenting concerns that may rightfully shift responsibility to a plaintiff can be helpful. Incident reports should be completed promptly and include details about the conditions at the time of the incident. Photographs of the area, including any warning signs or barriers, can help establish that reasonable precautions were taken, etc.
Asserting comparative negligence defenses early can also strengthen a company’s defense. Raising the issue during initial investigations, preserving evidence and identifying witness statements can help build a clearer picture of shared responsibility. In litigation, this defense can be used to reduce potential damages or, in some cases, eliminate liability entirely if the plaintiff’s fault meets or exceeds the applicable threshold.