Understanding the basic differences between the liability laws in the U.S. and Canada is imperative for anyone involved in cross-border legal issues, related to business, personal injury, or even international litigation. While both nations have a common law heritage, there are many differences when it comes to how liability is proved and remedied.

The Importance of Understanding Legal Differences

Variations in liability principles will greatly affect individuals or organizations that may be involved in accidents, disputes, or claims that extend across national borders. For example, individuals injured in cross-border incidents may be treated entirely differently depending on where their claims are considered under the laws in the U.S. or those of Canada.

That’s why a Florida personal injury lawyer will handle calculations differently from a lawyer in another country, such as Canada, due to fundamental differences in national laws that have been established over many years. Here are a couple of major differences you’re going to notice in liability in these jurisdictions:

Comparative Fault and Contributory Negligence Frameworks

In Canada, most provinces operate under a system called pure comparative negligence. It warrants that a plaintiff’s recovery shall be reduced by their percentage of responsibility, but they shall still be entitled to recover their damages regardless of how much at fault they are. For instance, if you’re found 70% responsible for an accident, you’re still in a position to recover 30% of your damages. This is how it works in most areas, especially in Ontario and Quebec.

Most U.S. states have dropped the traditional “pure contributory negligence” rule, which prohibited any recovery if the plaintiff was even slightly at fault. However, they still don’t uniformly adopt the pure comparative responsibility system used in Canada. Instead, most states use a “modified comparative responsibility” system, with a “50% bar rule” that prohibits plaintiffs from any recovery if they’re found to be 50% or more at fault.

Joint and Several Liability

In Canada, joint and several liability continues to be a dominant system. Under this liability rule, if two or more defendants are determined to be responsible for causing an indivisible injury, each defendant can be held responsible for the damages. If one defendant doesn’t have enough assets to pay their share, the balance will be paid by the other defendants. 

It means that a plaintiff may pursue and collect the entire judgment from any defendant, regardless of that defendant’s percentage of responsibility. For instance, if there are three negligent defendants in a multiple vehicle accident, the plaintiff can recover the full amount from someone with the best insurance coverage.

On the other hand, the United States has introduced substantial limitations on joint and several liability via legislation. Almost all states have reduced or abolished joint and several liability as a whole, opting for proportionate liability schemes or modified joint and several liability. Under proportionate liability, a defendant will only be responsible for their share of the total liability. Some states also limit joint and several liability, typically in situations where defendants acted in concert.

Endnote

Getting familiar with these fundamental distinctions is always necessary for individuals involved in cross-border disputes or cross-border dealings with possible liabilities. Attorneys with knowledge of both systems are in the best position to explain how to deal with these issues, so be sure to connect with a pro to identify the best way forward.