About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

17 Ind. L. Rev. 881 (1984)
Indiana's Comparative Fault Law: A Legislator's View

handle is hein.journals/indilr17 and id is 903 raw text is: Indiana's Comparative Fault Law: A Legislator's View NELSON J. BECKER* The Indiana General Assembly passed a comparative fault act during the 1983 session. Senate Enrolled Act 287 passed the House 78-12 and passed the Senate 41-6. The Act will become effective January 1, 1985. In the past several sessions of the Indiana General Assembly, some form of comparative fault legislation has been considered. Some proposed the pure comparative fault concept, which met with little or no success, while others attempted modified forms. The trial bar and defense bar were generally the proponents and opponents of the legislation with con- siderable interest being exhibited by the insurance industry. The General Assembly listened to the debate each year, but not until the 1983 session did it decide it was time to make a fundamental change in the law with respect to determining fault. There are a number of factors that made it possible for a comparative fault act to pass. First of all, the Act is a modified form of comparative fault, not the pure form of comparative fault. Under the modified form adopted by Indiana, a plaintiff who is more than fifty percent at fault is barred from recovery. It is highly unlikely that a pure form of com- parative fault, which allows recovery for a ninety-nine percent-fault plain- tiff, would have been regarded as fair by the members of the Indiana General Assembly. Secondly, comparative fault was regarded by legislators as more equitable to the slightly-at-fault plaintiff than the contributory negligence rule. Comparative fault avoids the inequity under the contributory negligence rule of totally barring recovery to a plaintiff who is slightly at fault. Many legislators felt that juries ignored the contributory negligence rule or used devices such as the doctrine of last clear chance to avoid its harsh effects. By abolishing contributory negligence, legislators felt that juries would no longer be forced to contrive ways to circumvent the harsh treatment of the slightly-at-fault plaintiff. Furthermore, legislators felt that under comparative fault, judgments would be more predictable, equitable, and less likely to breed disrespect for the law. *Representative Becker, from Logansport, was one of the sponsors of the comparative fault bill in the Indiana General Assembly. The following Article has been reproduced with only slight modifications from the manuscript that Representative Becker submitted to the Indiana Law Review. It was felt that an Article from one of the sponsors of this historic legislation would be an asset to this Symposium and would provide a helpful insight into the passage of the Act.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most