How To Prove A Michigan Comparative Negligence Defense

 

 

In Michigan, a defense of Comparative Negligence is defined as:

Comparative negligence rules allocate damages when both parties are at least somewhat at fault. In a situation where both the plaintiff and the defendant were negligent, the jury allocates fault, usually as a percentage (for example, a jury might find that the plaintiff was 30% at fault and the defendant was 70% at fault). Then each pays their share of the other’s damages.

It simply means:

When the plaintiff’s own actions will reduce the amount that the defendant has to pay.

There are 3 elements of the defense:

• Element 1. The plaintiff had a duty of care. The plaintiff had a responsibility to act safely and avoid causing harm to others, meaning they should have taken reasonable steps to prevent any accidents or injuries that could affect themselves or those around them.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The plaintiff was responsible for ensuring the safety of the premises where the incident occurred.
  * The plaintiff had prior knowledge of hazardous conditions that could potentially harm others.
  * The plaintiff was trained in safety protocols but failed to implement them during the event.
  * The plaintiff had a contractual obligation to maintain a safe environment for all visitors.
  * The plaintiff’s actions directly contributed to the circumstances leading to the incident.

• Element 2. The plaintiff breached that duty by act or omission. The plaintiff failed to meet their responsibility to act safely, either by doing something wrong or by not doing something they should have, which contributed to the accident or injury in question.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The plaintiff failed to wear a seatbelt while driving, which is a violation of state law and safety regulations.
  * The plaintiff was texting on their phone at the time of the accident, distracting them from the road.
  * The plaintiff ignored multiple warning signs indicating a hazardous road condition ahead.
  * The plaintiff chose to drive under the influence of alcohol, impairing their ability to operate the vehicle safely.
  * The plaintiff did not maintain their vehicle, resulting in a tire blowout that contributed to the accident.

• Element 3. The plaintiff’s breach contributed to the plaintiff’s injury. This means that the person who is suing (the plaintiff) also played a part in causing their own injury, which can affect how much compensation they might receive because their actions contributed to the accident or harm they experienced.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The plaintiff was texting while walking, which distracted them from their surroundings.
  * The plaintiff ignored posted warning signs about the hazardous conditions in the area.
  * The plaintiff failed to wear appropriate safety gear while engaging in a risky activity.
  * The plaintiff chose to enter a construction zone despite clear barriers and warnings.
  * The plaintiff was aware of the potential dangers but proceeded without caution.

^{(See Kalamazoo Oil Company v. Boerman, 242 Mich. App. 75 (2000).)}
If you’re representing yourself in court and plan to assert a Defense of Comparative Negligence, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents that are supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Our platform provides the resources you need to navigate this complex process effectively.

Prove Your MI Comparative Negligence Defense

U.S. Civil Cases Only