Winston-Salem Journal Editorial

The General Assembly is halfway along to a major overhaul of civil-negligence law. The change is needed for true justice to prevail.

In negligence cases where people and/or property are harmed, North Carolina uses the old common-law principle of contributory negligence. We are one of only four states that do. The jury is instructed that if any party to the case contributed in any way to the injury, then that party cannot recover any damages.

Let’s imagine that a jogger was injured by a speeding car while crossing the street just outside of the crosswalk. Under our law, the jogger cannot collect any damages because he contributed, however slightly, to his own injuries when he left the crosswalk. In January 2008, Journal columnist Scott Sexton reported on two real-world mishaps in which area residents bore the full brunt of this unfair law.

The House of Representatives has passed and sent to the Senate a bill that would change this harsh system. Sen. Pete Brunstetter is one of the principal sponsors of the companion Senate bill.

Under the change, North Carolina would move to the far more widely used system of comparative fault.

Under it, the judge instructs the jury to place a percentage of responsibility on each party. The person with the most responsibility then pays a pro-rated share of damages.

This can get very complicated, especially when multiple parties are involved, but let’s return to the simple case of the jogger. The jury might determine that he was 5 percent responsible. Under the proposed comparative fault bill, the driver, 95 percent responsible, would then pay slightly reduced damages to the jogger.

This is a much fairer system. It takes into account the fact that many accidents involve fault by several parties but that the degree of fault can vary widely among them. In short, this system provides justice while the other does not.

This issue has been on the legislative agenda for decades. Plaintiffs’ lawyers support it while the business community and the insurance industry oppose it.

Opponents say that people should not collect damages when they contribute to their own injury or loss. They dismiss cases such as our hypothetical one by saying that they are almost always settled out of court and that people such as the jogger get justice. They also warn that comparative fault will drive up legal fees, increase litigation and hurt business.

Even if those predictions were correct, which we do not concede, they don’t outweigh the overpowering argument that our current system isn’t fair and just. Comparative fault is the fairer, more humane system for determining damage awards. The Senate should pass the bill.