Opinion ID: 2506435
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Contributory Negligence versus Comparative Negligence

Text: Prior to the adoption of comparative negligence in 1991, the doctrine of contributory negligence was the long-prevailing standard for tort recovery in South Carolina. Contributory negligence is a want of ordinary care upon the part of a person injured by the actionable negligence of another, combining and concurring with that negligence, and contributing to the injury as a proximate cause thereof, without which the injury would not have occurred. Gladden v. S. Ry. Co., 142 S.C. 492, 522-23, 141 S.E. 90, 99 (1928) (citation omitted). Under contributory negligence, if a plaintiff was negligent to any extent in contributing to his own injury, the plaintiff was completely barred from recovering damages from a negligent defendant. Gladden, 142 S.C. at 523, 141 S.E. at 100; S.C. Ins. Co. v. James C. Greene & Co., 290 S.C. 171, 348 S.E.2d 617 (Ct.App.1986). To ameliorate the harsh results that could occur under this general rule, an exception developed that a defendant could not assert the contributory negligence of a plaintiff as a total defense in cases where the defendant's conduct was reckless, willful, or wanton; under such circumstances, the plaintiff's own contributory negligence would not bar the plaintiff's recovery. Dawson v. S.C. Power Co., 220 S.C. 26, 66 S.E.2d 322 (1951); Orangeburg Sausage Co. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 316 S.C. 331, 450 S.E.2d 66 (Ct.App.1994). However, if the plaintiff was also contributorily reckless, the plaintiff could not recover for the defendant's similarly reckless conduct. Ardis v. Griffin, 239 S.C. 529, 123 S.E.2d 876 (1962). In 1991, South Carolina abolished the doctrine of contributory negligence and adopted comparative negligence as its tort standard in Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co., 303 S.C. 243, 399 S.E.2d 783 (1991). In Nelson, this Court stated that, under comparative negligence a plaintiff in a negligence action may recover damages if his or her negligence is not greater than that of the defendant. Id. at 245, 399 S.E.2d at 784. The amount of the plaintiff's recovery shall be reduced in proportion to the amount of his or her negligence. Id. The Court adopted a modified version of comparative negligence known as the less than or equal to approach, by which the plaintiff in a negligence action could recover damages if his or her negligence is 50% or less or, stated another way, if the plaintiff's negligence does not exceed 50%. Singleton v. Sherer, 377 S.C. 185, 205, 659 S.E.2d 196, 206 (Ct.App.2008). The determination of respective degrees of negligence attributable to the plaintiff and the defendant presents a question of fact for the jury, at least where conflicting inferences may be drawn. Hurd v. Williamsburg County, 363 S.C. 421, 429, 611 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2005).