Opinion ID: 2329816
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Combined Comparison

Text: Kansas and Arkansas are two jurisdictions with statutes that, similar to the Pennsylvania Act, use the plural (parties and defendants) in the comparison language. The Kansas statute provides: if such party's negligence was less than the causal negligence of the party or parties against whom claim for recovery is made. Kan.Stat.Ann. 60-258. The Kansas Courts have interpreted this statute to permit a plaintiff to recover as long as his negligence is less than the combined negligence of all defendants against whom recovery is sought. Negley v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 229 Kan. 465, 625 P.2d 472 (1981). Langhofer v. Reiss, 5 Kan.App.2d 573, 620 P.2d 1173 (1980). The Arkansas Act provides: if the fault chargeable to a party claiming damages is equal to or greater in degree than any fault chargeable to the party or parties from whom the claiming party seeks to recover damages, then the claiming party is not entitled to recover such damages. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 27-1765. The Arkansas Courts have long held that under its Comparative Negligence Act, the negligence of the plaintiff is to be compared to the combined negligence of all defendants from whom plaintiff seeks recovery. [14] Walton v. Tull, 234 Ark. 882, 356 S.W.2d 20 (1962), Riddell v. Little, 253 Ark. 686, 488 S.W.2d 34 (1972). Both New Hampshire and Colorado follow the combined negligence approach even though the language in each statute is in terms of the singular without mention of such plural references as parties or defendants. The New Hampshire Act provides: if such negligence was not greater than the causal negligence of the defendant  RSA 507:7-a. The New Hampshire Courts have construed this language to allow recovery in multiple defendant cases so long as the plaintiff's negligence does not exceed the total negligence of all defendants. Saltzman v. Saltzman, 124 N.H. 515, 475 A.2d 1 (1984); Hurley v. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, 123 N.H. 750, 465 A.2d 1217 (1983). The Colorado statute provides: if such negligence was not as great as the negligence of the person against whom recovery is sought. C.R.S. 1973, XX-XX-XXX. The Colorado Courts have interpreted this language to provide for the plaintiff's negligence to be compared to the combined negligence of all defendants. If plaintiff's negligence is less than 50%, he may recover from all defendants even though a particular defendant may individually be less negligent than the plaintiff. Mountain Mobil Mix, Inc. v. Gifford, 660 P.2d 883 (Colo.1983). In reviewing the several jurisdictions which have enacted comparative negligence statutes, we observe the following: In the majority of the states with statutes that use only the singular, i.e. party, defendant, in the comparison language, the plaintiff's negligence is compared individually to each defendant. In some states where the statute refers only to the singular, the plaintiff's negligence is compared to the total negligence of all defendants. In the states where the statutory language includes the plural, i.e. parties, defendants, the courts have construed such statutes as requiring that the plaintiff's negligence be compared to the combined negligence of all defendants. The Pennsylvania statute which uses the plural defendants in the comparison language likewise mandates a comparison with the negligence of all defendants.