Opinion ID: 1180974
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Growth and Relevance of Comparative Negligence

Text: The rapid acceptance of comparative negligence principles in the United States came just after many jurisdictions had initially determined to accept or reject the seat belt defense under either contributory negligence or mitigation of damages theories. In 1960, only six states had adopted comparative negligence. [12] From 1965 to date, thirty-eight states have statutorily or judicially accepted comparative negligence. [13] Apparently only six states and the District of Columbia still adhere to the full contributory negligence defense. [14] Traditional contributory negligence theory, of course, militates for rejection of the seat belt defense. Contributory negligence is conceptualized in terms of conduct by plaintiff which contributed to the occurrence of the accident. See McDowell v. Davis, 104 Ariz. 69, 72, 448 P.2d 869, 872 (1968). Because seat belt nonuse seldom contributes to the occurrence of the accident, it does not easily fit into the theory of contributory negligence. But see Kington v. Camden, 19 Ariz. App. 361, 507 P.2d 700 (1973) (if driver had fastened her seat belt, she would not have lost control of her vehicle and caused crash). Further, if the seat belt defense is considered a form of contributory negligence, it would totally bar recovery. Theoretically, that was the situation under the former Arizona law. McDowell, supra . However, nonuse of a seat belt rarely causes all of plaintiff's injuries. In the typical accident, nonuse simply increases the number or severity of injuries beyond those which would have occurred had the plaintiff used a seat belt. Thus, under traditional contributory negligence principles, the seat belt defense would have constituted a harsh and untenable policy denying all recovery to nonusers, despite the lack of any causal nexus between seat belt nonuse and some of the injuries. Comparative negligence theories eliminate most of those problems because an adverse finding on nonuse does not bar recovery but merely reduces the damages in proportion to the contributing factor of seat belt nonuse. Thus, since Nash, courts originally unwilling to enforce a total bar to plaintiff's recovery under contributory negligence now are able to make a proportionate reduction of damages under comparative negligence concepts. [15] This, in fact, furthers the basic goal of comparative negligence theory  to allow an appraisal of all relevant facts in determining the correct damages to be given each claimant in a personal injury case. [16] Given this choice, courts able to apply comparative negligence principles to seat belt defense cases broke their analysis into at least two steps. Nonuse of the seat belt generally was not a factor contributing to the accident. However, by failing to use available seat belts, the plaintiff might have enhanced the injuries over those which would have occurred if the belts had been used. [17] Thus, to ascertain the proper damages, the emphasis switched to this second collision between the occupants and their environment. [18] Even with this new focus, the difficulty of determining the complex calculus of all conceivable causal connections involved in any accident dissuaded some courts from recognizing the defense. [19] Nevertheless, the rise of comparative negligence undermined much of the theoretical basis for rejection of the defense. At the same time, the law was beginning to catch up with technology.