Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

Contributory negligence

Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court

Definitions from Case Law

From 346 U.S. 406 - Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn · 1953Most cited · 2,890 citing opinions

admiralty rule

The harsh rule of the common law under which contributory negligence wholly barred an injured person from recovery is completely incompatible with modern admiralty policy and practice. Exercising its traditional discretion, admiralty has developed and now follows its own fairer and more flexible rule which allows such consideration of contributory negligence in mitigation of damages as justice requires.

How the Supreme Court has restated “Contributory negligence”

187218801900192019401953 most cited: 346 U.S. 406 - Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn (1953)
first stateddeparted

Each Supreme Court definition of “Contributory negligence,” sized by how often later courts cited it. “Change” is measured by wording overlap with earlier definitions — a rough signal, not a semantic judgment.

How often courts cite the cases defining “Contributory negligence”

18701900195020002030853

Court decisions citing the 6 opinions that defined “Contributory negligence” — 3,822 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining cases as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.

All 6 definitions, chronological · 1872–1953

  1. ORIGINAL

    The want of such care or contributory negligence, as it is termed, is a defence to be proved by the other side.

  2. Contributory negligence, on the other hand, is the omission of the employee to use those precautions for his own safety which ordinary prudence requires.

  3. Contributory negligence is the negligent act of a plaintiff which, concurring and cooperating with the negligent act of a defendant, is the proximate cause of the injury.

  4. The reasonable reliance of the employee upon the employer's promise to repair the defect is as good an answer to the charge of contributory negligence as to the contention that the risk was assumed. The employer's direction or request that the employee remain at work pending performance of the promise has a material bearing upon the employee's duty in the meantime, and therefore upon the question of his negligence, which involves the notion of some fault or breach of duty on his part.

  5. 1936·298 U.S. 124 - Beadle v. Spencer[p8]· cited 227×

    Contributory negligence is not a defense to a suit brought either under the Jones Act or under the maritime law for injuries attributable to negligently defective equipment. Under both it is ground only for apportionment of the damage.

    Jones Act · construing 46 U.S.C. § 30104