comparative negligence

Under that doctrine contributory negligence, however gross, is not a bar to recovery but only mitigates damages.

A doctrine whereby negligence is classified as "slight," "ordinary," or "gross." In such case, if the negligence of a defendant be gross, there may be a recovery, notwithstanding slight contributory negligence (96 111. 47); but not where the negligence of the parties is of the same class, or the defendant's "ordinary," and the plaintiff's "slight" (72 111. 351). The doctrine is now abandoned in the only state where it prevailed as a common-law doctrine. 153 111. 165. However, employer's liability acts in some states have modified the common law in a manner nearly akin to the old rule of comparative negligence. Under the Federal Employer's Liability Act of 1908, the negligence is compared in determining the damages, recovery being reduced proportionately to the extent that plaintiff's negligence has contributed to the accident. It varies from the old rule, however, in that no matter how gross the contributory negligence of the plaintiff may be when compared VTith the negligence of the defendant, it may be considered only in diminution of recovery and not in bar.

That doctrine in the law of negligence by which "gross" negligence, and a recovery permitted notwithstanding the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, when the negligence of the plaintiff is slight and the negligence of the defendant gross, but refused when the plaintiff has been guilty of a want of ordinary care contributing to his injury; or when the negligence of the defendant is not gross, but only ordinary or slight when compared under the circumstances of the case with the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. R. Co., 103 111. 512; Calumet Iron & Steel Co. v. Martin, 115 111. 358, 3 N. E. 456; Rockford, R. I. & St. L. R. Co. v. Delaney, 82 111. 198, 25 Am. Rep. 308. This doctrine existed in the civil law, and in some instances in admiralty, but it did not exist in the states other than Illinois and Louisiana. The doctrine of comparative negligence no longer obtains in Illinois; it must now be established in actions for personal injuries, or for death by wrongful act that the plaintiff, or the deceased, was exercising ordinary care; Imes v. R. Co., 105 111. App. 37; see Sluder v. Transit Co., 189 Mo. 107, 88 S. W. 648, 5LR.A. (N. S.) 239. It has been revived in the Federal Employer's Liability Act of 1908.

That doctrine in the law of negligence by which the negligence of the parties is compared, in the degrees of "slight," "ordinary," and "gross" negligence, and a recovery permitted, notwithstanding the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, when the negligence of the plaintiff is slight and the negligence of the defendant gross, but refused when the plaintiff has been guilty of a want of ordinary care, thereby contributing to his injury, or when the negligence of the defendant is not gross, but only ordinary or slight, when compared, under the circumstances of the case, with the contributory negligence of the plnintiff. 3 Amer. & Eng. Enc Law, 367. See Steel Co. v. Martin, 115 III. 358, 3 N. E. 456; Railroad Co. v. Ferguson, 113 Ga. 708, 39 S. E. 306, 54 L. R. A. 802; Straus v. Railroad Co.., 75 Mo. 185; Hurt v. Rnilroad Co... 94 Mo. 255, 7 S. W. 1, 4 Am. St. Rep. 374.

Defined under Comparative in Black's Law Dictionary.

That doctrine in the law of negligence by which the negligence of the parties is compared, in the degrees of “slight,” “ordinary,” and “gross” negligence, and a recovery permitted, notwithstanding the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, when the negligence of the plaintiff is slight and the negligence of the defendant gross, but refused when the plaintiff has been guilty of a want of ordinary care, thereby contributing to his injury, or when the negligence of the defendant is not gross, but only ordinary or slight, when compared, under the circumstances of the case, with the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. 3 Amer. & Eng. Enc. Law, 867. See 103 Ll. 512; 115 lll. 358, 3 N. E. Rep. 456; $2 IN. 198; 1 Shear. & R. Neg. §§ 102,103; Whart. Neg. § 334. COMPARISON OF HANDWRIT-