Oregon Law: Contributory Negligence Vs. Comparative Negligence

Posted on March 26, 2025 writen by Jane Paulson in Negligence

Determining fault in personal injury cases can be complex, particularly when multiple parties share responsibility. If you seek compensation for an injury in Oregon, understanding the distinction between comparative vs contributory negligence is essential. These legal doctrines directly influence the damages you may recover and the overall direction of your claim.

Oregon follows a modified comparative negligence system, contrasting the outdated contributory negligence approach. Our attorneys at Paulson Coletti Trial Attorneys PC will examine the key differences between these systems, their legal impact, and how they shape personal injury claims in Oregon.

What is contributory negligence?

Contributory negligence is a method for determining fault that states that if a plaintiff is negligent in any way for their injuries, they are barred from recovering any compensation. Contributory negligence has been abolished in most places across the country due to its seemingly unfair way of treating victims in an accident. This method of determining negligence will essentially keep a victim from recovering compensation for their losses, even if the at-fault party was 99% responsible for the incident.

What is comparative negligence?

Comparative negligence is a system that lays responsibility on at-fault parties based on their percentage of fault for the incident. This system prevents the harsh reality of a defendant completely let off the hook for an injury-causing incident simply because the other party shared a part of the blame. Even those partially at-fault can recover compensation, but the total amount of compensation they are awarded will be reduced based on their percentage of fault for the incident.

There are various types of comparative negligence laws that are used in jurisdictions across the US. In a pure comparative negligence system, an injury victim is able to collect damages even if they are up to 99% at fault for the incident. However, in a modified comparative negligence system, an injury victim will only be able to recover compensation if they are 51% or 50% or less at fault for the incident.

Oregon operates under a modified comparative negligence system in which a person is able to recover compensation for their injuries so long as they are 51% or less at fault for the incident.

For an example of how this works, let us suppose that Gina sustains a slip and fall injury at a grocery store after slipping on a spill that store employees knew about but failed to clean up. However, attorneys for the store argue that Gina is partially at fault for the incident because she was texting on her phone at the time she slipped and, had she not been texting, GIna would have seen the spill. In this scenario, suppose the case goes to trial and the jury determines that Gina should be awarded $10,000 and damages while also determining that she was 20% at fault for the incident. In this case, Gina would only recover $8,000 in total compensation.

Pure vs. Modified Comparative Negligence

Comparative negligence assigns fault proportionally among the involved parties. However, states apply this rule differently, using one of two primary methods:

Pure Comparative Negligence

Under pure comparative negligence, a plaintiff can recover damages even if they are primarily at fault. For example, if you are 99% responsible for an accident, you can still collect 1% of the awarded damages.

For instance, if your total damages amount to $10,000 and you are found 75% at fault, your compensation will be reduced to $2,500. While this system allows recovery regardless of high fault levels, it can also create challenges when both parties bear significant responsibility.

Modified Comparative Negligence

Oregon adheres to a modified comparative negligence standard, which imposes stricter limits. According to ORS 31.600, a plaintiff may only recover damages if their share of fault does not exceed 51%. They cannot recover compensation if found to be 52% or more at fault.

For example:

• If a court awards $20,000 in damages but finds you 30% at fault, your compensation will be reduced to $14,000.
• You will be ineligible to recover damages if your fault level reaches 52% or more.

This threshold plays a critical role in personal injury claims, as defendants often attempt to attribute higher levels of fault to plaintiffs to limit their liability. Understanding how courts assess fault and how attorneys present compelling evidence can substantially affect your case outcome.

Oregon’s approach seeks to ensure fairness by proportionally distributing compensation while preventing those who bear most of the blame from making claims. However, it also underscores the importance of legal representation in accurately and fairly assessing fault.

Key Differences Between Contributory and Comparative Negligence

To fully appreciate the benefits of Oregon’s comparative negligence system, it’s important to contrast it with comparative vs contributory negligence, a distinction that has shaped how fault is assigned in personal injury claims.

Contributory Negligence

Under this strict legal framework, any degree of fault—even 1%—altogether bars recovery. This often leads to harsh and unjust outcomes, which is why most states, including Oregon, have moved away.

For instance, consider a pedestrian crossing the street while looking at their phone. If a speeding driver strikes them, but the pedestrian is found 5% at fault for not looking both ways, they would receive zero compensation under contributory negligence laws.

This rigid approach frequently resulted in unfair denials of rightful claims, prompting many states to adopt comparative negligence as a more balanced alternative.

Comparative Negligence

Unlike contributory negligence, comparative negligence permits recovery even when a plaintiff shares some responsibility. Oregon’s modified comparative negligence model ensures that accident victims can still seek compensation if they do not hold most of the fault.

Legal Implications of Contributory and Comparative Negligence

Understanding these principles is critical for anyone pursuing a personal injury claim. Here’s why:

1. Determining Fault

Fault allocation is rarely straightforward, especially in multi-party accidents. Insurance companies and defendants often attempt to shift blame onto plaintiffs to reduce their liability. A strong legal strategy is essential to prevent unfair fault assignments.

2. The Role of Evidence

To establish negligence, substantial evidence is required, including:

• Police and accident reports
• Witness statements
• Testimony
• Photographic and video evidence

For example, in a car accident on an icy road, proving the other driver’s excessive speed can counter-arguments that you were solely responsible.

3. Recovery Calculation

Because Oregon follows a modified comparative negligence rule, the percentage of fault attributed to you directly impacts your compensation. Even small admissions of fault can significantly reduce your financial recovery.

4. Protecting Against High Fault Assignments

If your assigned fault reaches 52%, you lose your right to compensation. Insurance companies and defense attorneys may attempt to inflate your level of fault to avoid payouts. A skilled personal injury attorney can challenge these tactics and help secure the compensation you deserve.

Speak to an attorney for help

If you or somebody you care about has been injured due to the negligent actions of another, you should work with an attorney as soon as possible. For these cases, an attorney will have the resources and experience necessary to conduct a complete investigation into the incident in order to properly determine liability. An injury attorney in Portland can negotiate with every party involved in an effort to secure maximum compensation on your behalf.