Opinion ID: 2329816
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Individual Comparison

Text: The appellant refers us to other jurisdictions which have embraced the individual comparison approach. These jurisdictions include, among others, Minnesota, Idaho and Wyoming. A reading of the statutes of these states reveals that, like the Wisconsin statute, each contains only the singular person or defendant in that portion of the Act which establishes the negligence comparison. The Minnesota statute provides: if the contributory fault was not greater than the fault of the person against whom recovery is sought. Minn.Stat.Ann. § 604.01. The Idaho statute provides: if such negligence was not as great as the negligence or gross negligence of the person against whom recovery is sought. Idaho C. § 6-801. The Wyoming Act provides: if the contributory negligence was not as great as the negligence of the person against whom recovery is sought. Wyo.Stat. 1977 § 1-1-109. None of these contributory negligence statutes is similar to the Pennsylvania Act in that the plural, persons or defendants is not used in referring to the comparison of negligence. [13]