## Facts

- Two personal-injury actions were tried separately but consolidated on appeal to reconsider West Virginia’s contributory-negligence doctrine.
- In Bradley’s case, she alleged injury caused by conditions involving Appalachian Power Company’s equipment or lines; the utility asserted contributory negligence.
- In Napier’s case, he alleged injury in an accident involving Elk Grocery Company; the defendant asserted contributory negligence.
- In both trials, the juries were instructed that any plaintiff negligence contributing to the injury barred recovery; the courts refused requested comparative-negligence instructions.
- Both juries returned defense verdicts, and judgments were entered for the defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether West Virginia should abolish the common-law rule of contributory negligence (complete bar for any plaintiff fault) and replace it with comparative negligence allocating damages by relative fault.
2. Under a comparative-fault system, whether negligence may be compared only if it is a proximate cause of the injury.
3. If comparative negligence is adopted judicially, whether and to what extent the new rule applies retroactively.

## Decision

- The court abolished pure contributory negligence and adopted modified comparative negligence.
- A plaintiff may recover damages so long as the plaintiff’s fault does not equal or exceed the combined fault of the other parties involved in the accident; damages are reduced by the plaintiff’s percentage of fault when recovery is permitted.
- Only negligence that is a proximate cause of the injury may be counted for or against a party in the comparative-fault allocation.
- The court articulated factors to determine retroactive versus prospective application of overruling decisions and applied the new comparative-negligence rule with limited retroactivity.
- The judgments for defendants were reversed and the cases remanded for further proceedings consistent with comparative-fault instructions.

## Legal Principles

- Contributory negligence as a complete bar to recovery is abolished; West Virginia applies modified comparative negligence barring recovery only when plaintiff fault is at least 50% (i.e., equals or exceeds the combined fault of other parties).
- Comparative fault compares only causal fault: a party’s negligence must be a proximate cause of the injury to be included in the allocation.
- When the court overrules prior doctrine, retroactivity is assessed by considering: the substantive area affected; whether the change is procedural or substantive; whether the issue is common law versus statutory/constitutional; public-policy reliance concerns; the degree of departure from prior law; and how other courts have handled retroactivity in the same area.

## Conclusion

West Virginia replaced the all-or-nothing contributory-negligence bar with a modified comparative-negligence system that permits reduced recovery when the plaintiff’s fault is less than the combined fault of other parties, requires proximate causation before fault is counted, and applies the new rule with limited retroactivity.


Bradley v. Appalachian Power Co., 163 W. Va. 332, 256 S.E.2d 879 (W. Va. 1979)