Contributory negligence
A rule that bars a claimant from any recovery if they bore any responsibility for their own injury.
What it means in practice.
Only four US states and the District of Columbia still apply pure contributory negligence: Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, and DC. Most jurisdictions have moved to comparative-fault rules.
Contributory negligence means the injured person’s own carelessness helped cause the harm. The phrase means two very different things depending on where you are. In a handful of US jurisdictions it is a complete defence: if you were even slightly to blame, you recover nothing. In England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Australia it only reduces the damages by your share.
Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia and the District of Columbia keep the complete bar. Maryland’s highest court was asked to drop it in 2013 and refused, leaving any change to the legislature.
Under the UK’s Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, damages are “reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable” having regard to the claimant’s share in the responsibility. Australian courts reduce damages the same way, and the percentage is often agreed or argued at trial.
How it works in different places.
| Where | How it works | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Maryland | Complete bar. A volunteer coach hurt when an unanchored goal fell on him recovered nothing, although the jury found the association negligent. | Coleman v. Soccer Association of Columbia (Md. 2013) |
| North Carolina | Complete bar: if your own carelessness helped cause the harm, you recover nothing. The Supreme Court applied the rule again in 2025. | Moseley v. Hendricks (N.C. 2025) |
| Virginia | Complete bar when your negligence is a proximate cause; last clear chance does not override it. | Williams v. Harrison (Va. 1998) |
| England and Wales | Reduction only: damages are cut by the share the court thinks just and equitable. | Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, s 1(1) |
| Northern Ireland | Reduction only: a young driver found equally to blame had £275,000 reduced by 50% to £137,500. | McAuley v Russell [2024] NIKB 41 |
| New South Wales | Reduction only: a subcontractor who fell through an open slab penetration had his damages cut by 30%; the defendants had argued for 100%. | Daher v Gold & Eagle Constructions [2024] NSWSC 1575 |
A worked example.
A 25% reduction in Queensland: Cabato v Paltridge (2025)
- Accident
- Cyclist and car collided at Palm Beach, 29 March 2017
- Agreed contributory negligence
- 25%
- Damages before the reduction
- $98,218.55
- Less 25%
- $24,554.64
- Judgment
- $73,663.91
The parties agreed the driver was negligent and the cyclist 25% responsible, so the court assessed the full damages and then took a quarter off.