Opinion ID: 2276108
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Purpose of Comparative Negligence

Text: Comparative negligence calls for liability for any particular injury in direct proportion to fault. [8] As opposed to contributory negligence, where the plaintiff's negligence can be a complete defense, comparative negligence shift[s] the focus of attention from liability to damages, and ... divide[s] the damages between the parties who are at fault. [9] A finding of fault involves an examination of the duties of each party and a determination of whether those duties were breached. [10] In 1984, this Court concluded that contributory negligence should be supplanted by comparative negligence and explained its reason for doing so: Comparative negligence is not no-fault, but the direct opposite. It calls for liability for any particular injury in direct proportion to fault. It eliminates a windfall for either claimant or defendant as presently exists in our all-or-nothing situation where sometimes claims are barred by contributory negligence and sometimes claims are paid in full regardless of contributory negligence such as in cases involving last clear chance or defendant's willful or wanton negligence. [11] In 1988, the Kentucky legislature codified comparative fault. [12]