negligence

: Do not pay attention to the level expected by ordinary prudent staff under similar circumstances to protect others from the foreseeable and unreasonable harm risk under certain circumstances.

1a: negligence between multiple parties involved in injuries based on contribution to injury (calculated as a percentage) (plaintiffs' relative fault)

b. Principles, rules, or methods for allocation of liability and tort liability in tort: ​​negligence and damages are determined based on the ratio of plaintiff and defendant, plaintiffs' negligence is absolute It is not an obstacle. - Compare the general fault of this entry

Note: In most states, we changed the principle of common fault to the principle of negligence.

: Failure to protect others from the risks (deaths) caused by others' actions, a serious deviation from standard treatment expected by rational people who leave them to criminal liability

: Fault including regulatory violation to protect public safety

Note: In the case of a type in which the damage caused by an illegal act is trying to be prevented by the law, the plaintiff can regain the negligence theory itself in seeking the category of the person protected by law, and the violation is a direct It is a cause.

Note: Categories of mild negligence are used much less frequently than normal negligence and serious negligence, and previously existed throughout the third level classification.

The negligence comparison rule compares negligence between plaintiff and defendant. This is the rule that most states obey. Plaintiffs 'negligence does not hamper the recovery of these states, but only reduces plaintiffs' recovery, so the injury is caused by his own negligence. For example, a jury judged that plaintiffs' damages were $ 100,000, but if their negligence is a quarter of the amount of damage, plaintiffs can only receive damages of $ 75,000. Some states combine payment and comparison negligence provisions and plaintiffs refuse to take anything back when his faults exceed 50% of the cause of the injury.

Negative negligence outside the United States or general absolute negligence reduces the amount of damages that plaintiffs can compensate for based on negligence based on the extent to which plaintiffs' own negligence affects its cause It is a partial legal defense. When a defense is declared, the de facto jury (usually the jury) must determine the plaintiff's negligence degree, and the common negligence of all other stakeholders will damage the plaintiff I will. This is a revision of the principle of joint fault, no recovery by the plaintiff is recognized, and even its contribution to negligence and damage is minimal.

A country that follows relatively negligence can use one of three rules. The first type of comparative negligence is "pure comparative negligence". In Alaska and California states, this principle is being observed and plaintiffs can collect the amount of damages from the defendants minus the proportion of their responsibility. For example, if plaintiffs' total loss is $ 100,000 and plaintiffs have 25% negligence, plaintiffs may claim damages of $ 75,000 and bear liability of $ 25,000. Even if the plaintiff is in charge of 99% of the accident, he or she can collect 1% of the compensation.