I was in an accident with another driver who was at fault. They ran a stop sign and I T-boned the other driver. she was ticketed for failure to yield as well as no proof of insurance. Essentially I am wondering if I can take her to small claims court over my deductible amount ($500). Or could my driving while suspended ticket make things complicated and end up costing me.
The state of Alabama is one of the few remaining states that utilize the doctrine of "contributory negligence." Under Alabama law and practice, proof of contributory negligence as an affirmative defense will bar recovery by the plaintiff. However, the term contributory negligence refers to causation, or setting in motion a series of events that caused the injury. Having or not having a driver license has been judicially held as a non-causation status, and has no bearing on the ability of the plaintiff to recover or the defendant to successfully defend a claim.
In the case of Lindsey v. Barton, 70 So. 2d 633 (1954), the Supreme Court of Alabama stated: "It would seem that the statute requiring a driver's license imposes a duty for the benefit of the public at large and the individual defendant, therefore, would acquire no new rights by virtue of its enactment, nor would a violation thereof by the plaintiff, although a criminal offense, inure to the benefit of the defendant so as to be pleaded as contributory negligence against the plaintiff in an action for damages arising from an auto collision between them. It would seem that the statute requiring a driver's license imposes a duty for the benefit of the public at large and the individual defendant, therefore, would acquire no new rights by virtue of its enactment, nor would a violation thereof by the plaintiff, although a criminal offense, inure to the benefit of the defendant so as to be pleaded as contributory negligence against the plaintiff in an action for damages arising from an auto collision between them. .... Moreover, there was no evidence in this case nor any offer to show evidence the appellants-defendants tending to prove a causal relationship between the plaintiff's injuries and the plaintiff's alleged violation of the statute in failing to have a license. This is equally true of the evidence of the refusal upon application to grant the plaintiff a driver's license. By the weight of authority and the better reasoning as we see it, under the facts here presented, evidence that the driver was not licensed as required by statute is inadmissible unless there is some causal relationship between the injuries and the failure to have a license. Upon like reasoning the rejection of the evidence of the refusal upon application to grant the plaintiff a driver's license was proper. [citation omitted] (Evidence that defendant's license had been revoked before the accident in question improperly admitted.) [citation omitted]."
