Lexplug logoLexplug

Bradley v. Appalachian Power Co.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
163 W.Va. 332, 256 S.E.2d 879 (1979)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The common law doctrine of contributory negligence is replaced with a modified comparative negligence standard. A plaintiff is not barred from recovering damages in a tort action so long as their negligence does not equal or exceed the combined negligence of the other parties involved in the accident.


Facts:

  • This appeal consolidates two separate, unrelated tort cases.
  • In each case, a plaintiff suffered injuries allegedly caused by a defendant's negligence.
  • In each incident, the plaintiff's own conduct was also alleged to have been negligent.
  • The plaintiffs' alleged negligence was a factor contributing to their own injuries.

Procedural Posture:

  • Plaintiffs in two separate cases filed tort actions against defendants in West Virginia trial courts.
  • At trial, each plaintiff's attorney requested a jury instruction based on the doctrine of comparative negligence.
  • The trial courts denied the plaintiffs' requests.
  • The courts instead gave the standard instruction on the doctrine of contributory negligence.
  • In both cases, the juries returned verdicts in favor of the defendants.
  • The plaintiffs appealed the adverse judgments to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, which consolidated the two cases for its review.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Should the judicially-created common law doctrine of contributory negligence, which completely bars a plaintiff from recovery for being even slightly negligent, be modified to a system of comparative negligence?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Miller

Yes, the common law doctrine of contributory negligence should be modified. The court found the traditional rule, which bars a plaintiff from any recovery if they are found to be even slightly at fault, is a harsh and unjust anomaly. The court rejected 'pure' comparative negligence—which would allow a 99% at-fault plaintiff to recover—as an extreme that favors the party with the most damages regardless of fault. Instead, the court adopted a 'modified' comparative negligence rule as a fair, intermediate position. This new standard permits a plaintiff to recover damages as long as their negligence is less than the combined negligence of the other parties, with the recovery reduced proportionately by the plaintiff's percentage of fault.



Analysis:

This landmark decision fundamentally altered West Virginia tort law by judicially abolishing the harsh, all-or-nothing contributory negligence doctrine. By adopting a modified comparative negligence system, the court aligned West Virginia with the majority of jurisdictions and demonstrated its authority to evolve the common law to reflect contemporary principles of fairness. The decision shifts the focus from whether a plaintiff was negligent at all to the degree of each party's fault, impacting litigation strategy and settlement negotiations. The choice of a 'modified' rule, which still bars recovery for plaintiffs 50% or more at fault, prevents claims from parties who are primarily responsible for their own harm.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Bradley v. Appalachian Power Co. (1979) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Bradley v. Appalachian Power Co.