## Facts

- Margie Montgomery Hilen rode as a passenger in a vehicle driven by Keith Hays.
- Hays’s vehicle struck the rear of another vehicle and overturned.
- Hilen suffered severe injuries.
- At trial, it was undisputed that Hays negligently operated the vehicle and that his negligence caused the crash.
- The principal factual dispute was whether Hilen failed to use reasonable care for her own safety by riding with a driver she knew or should have known was too intoxicated to drive safely.
- The case therefore turned on whether Hilen was contributorily negligent in deciding to ride with Hays.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff’s negligence that contributes to her injury should remain a complete bar to recovery under Kentucky law.
2. Whether Kentucky should adopt comparative negligence, reducing damages in proportion to the plaintiff’s fault rather than barring recovery entirely.
3. Whether the judiciary may replace the common-law doctrine of contributory negligence with comparative negligence.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed the judgment that had denied recovery based on contributory negligence.
- The court rejected contributory negligence as a complete bar to recovery in Kentucky negligence actions.
- The court adopted pure comparative negligence, requiring liability and damages to be apportioned according to the parties’ relative fault.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings under comparative negligence principles.

## Legal Principles

- Contributory negligence, as a court-created common-law doctrine, may be modified or replaced by the judiciary absent statutory command to the contrary.
- Under pure comparative negligence, a plaintiff’s fault does not bar recovery; instead, damages are diminished in proportion to the plaintiff’s percentage of fault.
- Fault is compared among parties whose negligent conduct causally contributed to the injury, and responsibility is allocated in accordance with relative blameworthiness.
- Stare decisis does not require retention of a judge-made rule when experience and considerations of fairness show the rule produces unjust, all-or-nothing results.
- Comparative negligence is favored over contributory negligence because proportional loss allocation better matches the parties’ respective responsibility for the harm.

## Conclusion

The Kentucky Supreme Court abolished contributory negligence as a complete defense and adopted pure comparative negligence, requiring proportional reduction of damages based on the plaintiff’s share of fault and remanding for proceedings consistent with that rule.


Hilen v. Hays, 673 S.W.2d 713 (Ky. 1984)