Comparative Negligence in Massachusetts

Massachusetts Modified Comparative Negligence

Massachusetts follows a modified comparative negligence rule in personal injury cases. Under this rule, an injured person can recover damages even if they were partially at fault for their own injury, as long as their percentage of fault does not exceed 50%. If the injured person’s fault is 51% or more, they are barred from recovery entirely. When recovery is permitted, the damages are reduced proportionally by the injured person’s percentage of fault. Attorney Jeffrey C. Lavey explains how this rule applies to every client’s specific case and fights to minimize any fault attributed to his clients.

How Fault Is Apportioned

Fault apportionment in a Massachusetts personal injury case is determined either by a jury at trial or through negotiation in a settlement. The jury is asked to assign a percentage of fault to each party based on the evidence. If the plaintiff is found to be 20% at fault and the defendant 80% at fault in a case with total damages of $100,000, the plaintiff recovers $80,000, the total damages reduced by their 20% share of fault. The defendant’s insurer negotiates based on the same percentage analysis during settlement discussions.

Common Situations Where Comparative Negligence Is Raised

• Car accident cases where the injured driver allegedly failed to maintain proper lookout or was speeding
• Slip and fall cases where the property owner claims the hazard was obvious and the victim was not watching where they walked
• Bicycle accident cases where the insurer argues the cyclist was not in the proper lane position
• Pedestrian accident cases where the driver claims the pedestrian was crossing mid-block or against a signal
• Construction accident cases where multiple parties share responsibility for site safety failures
• Dog bite cases where the owner claims the victim provoked the dog

How Attorney Lavey Challenges Comparative Negligence Arguments

Insurance companies frequently attribute comparative negligence to injured plaintiffs in an attempt to reduce the value of claims. Many of these attributions are unsupported by the evidence and are argued strategically rather than accurately. Attorney Lavey challenges comparative negligence arguments with the specific facts of the accident, applicable traffic laws and property standards, expert testimony about the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s conduct, and the legal principles that define what constitutes negligence contributing to an accident rather than mere presence at the scene of another’s negligence.

The Importance of Legal Representation in Contested Fault Cases

In cases where comparative negligence is contested, the difference between an aggressive, evidence-based defense of the plaintiff’s conduct and an inadequate one can be tens of thousands of dollars. A 10% reduction in comparative fault attribution on a $200,000 damages case is a $20,000 difference in recovery. Attorney Lavey analyzes every case for comparative negligence vulnerability, addresses those vulnerabilities in the demand package and negotiations, and presents the strongest possible defense of his clients’ conduct at trial when the case proceeds to that stage.

Frequently Asked Questions