Experience from early tort reforms: comparative negligence since 1974. (economic aspects of comparative negligence vs. contributory negligence) By: George B. Flanigan, Joseph E. Johnson, Daniel T. Winkler and William Ferguson. Flanigan, G. B., J. E. Johnson , D. T. Winkler , and W. Ferguson. "Experience from Early Tort Reforms: Comparative Negligence Since 1974," The Journal of Risk and Insurance, vol. 56, September 1989, pp. 525-534. Made available courtesy of Blackwell Publishing: http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0022-4367 ***Note: Figures may be missing from this format of the document Abstract: Insurance consumers in states that have adopted comparative negligence pay more for automobile liability insurance than do consumers in states that retain contributory negligence. Through the use of a transformed generalized least squares regression model, allowance is made for: no-fault, population density, state-specific price-level, and automobile safety/fatality differences. States with pure comparative have much higher costs than do states with modified comparative negligence; states with modified comparative have higher costs than those with contributory negligence. The influence of alternative liability rules on the cost of insurance is of public concern. In recent years many states have changed from contributory negligence to either pure or modified comparative negligence. This article examines the cost of automobile insurance under three liability rules. The authors conclude that states with either type of comparative negligence have higher automobile insurance costs. Article: Negligence Standards Contributory negligence provides that in order to be awarded damages, plaintiffs must be free of fault, however slight, in causing those damages. As recently as 1970, 38 states had contributory negligence rules. Only five states retain a contributory negligence tandard. Table 1 lists the states, their changes, and the years those changes were effective. Under a system of pure comparative negligence, a contributorily negligent plaintiff "may recover even though his negligence was greater than [the] defendant's but his damage award will be reduced in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to him" [Schwartz, (1986)]. Modified comparative negligence is a compromise between the pure comparative and contributory standards. In practice there is no uniform meaning for modified comparative negligence. Nebraska and South Dakota allow recovery only to negligent plaintiffs who negligence is slight in comparison to the defendant's negligence (known as the "Slight/Gross Rule"). Other states have a "49 Percent Rule" where a plaintiff's contributory negligence will not bar recovery if his or her negligence is less than the defendant's.