## Facts

- A car driven by James Ribar skidded out of control and struck a metal barrel anchoring a temporary stop sign at a construction intersection.
- The stop sign had been placed during roadwork performed by Milburn Brothers, Inc. under Cook County supervision.
- Passenger James Alvis was injured and sued Ribar, Milburn Brothers, and Cook County for negligence.
- In a consolidated companion case, a tractor-trailer owned by Abbott Laboratories and driven by Robert Sweetwood collided with a vehicle driven by Klaus D. Krohn (decedent); the estate sued for negligence and also asserted a medical-malpractice claim against physician Steven Katz.
- In both suits, plaintiffs pleaded a separate count seeking application of comparative negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether Illinois should abolish the common-law doctrine of contributory negligence as a complete bar to recovery and replace it with comparative negligence.
2. If comparative negligence is adopted, whether Illinois should adopt a pure system or a modified system that bars recovery at or above a specified plaintiff-fault threshold.
3. Whether adoption of comparative negligence is solely for the legislature, rather than a change the judiciary may make to common law.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court abolished contributory negligence in Illinois tort actions.
- The court adopted pure comparative negligence, reducing a plaintiff’s damages in proportion to the plaintiff’s fault without an absolute bar based on percentage.
- The court held it had authority to change this judge-made common-law doctrine without awaiting legislative action.
- The court reversed the dismissals of the comparative-negligence counts and remanded for further proceedings under the new rule.
- The court applied the new rule to the parties before it and to causes of action arising after the decision.

## Legal Principles

- Contributory negligence, as a complete bar to recovery for any plaintiff negligence, is no longer the rule in Illinois.
- Under pure comparative negligence, a plaintiff’s negligence diminishes recoverable damages in proportion to fault but does not categorically bar recovery.
- Courts may reform judge-made common-law doctrines when their justifications have eroded and the rules produce unjust results; legislative inaction does not disable judicial change.
- A modified comparative negligence cutoff is disfavored because it recreates all-or-nothing outcomes at the threshold and can defeat proportional allocation of loss.
- Comparative fault principles are intended to align liability with causative fault and may affect related doctrines such as apportionment among multiple tortfeasors and contribution.

## Conclusion

Illinois replaced contributory negligence with pure comparative negligence, permitting recovery reduced by the plaintiff’s share of fault and confirming judicial authority to modernize common-law tort rules; the consolidated cases were remanded to proceed under the new standard with limited retroactive application.


Alvis v. Ribar, 421 N.E.2d 886 (Ill. 1981)