House Bill 969 directs the North Carolina Legislative Research Commission to study whether the state should abolish contributory negligence and replace it with another negligence system. The study must examine whether abolition would improve outcomes for residents, whether keeping contributory negligence is harming citizens and in what ways, and what the fiscal effects of changing the law would be for individuals, consumers, businesses, insurance, and other affected areas.
The bill also requires the Commission to compare possible alternatives, including modified comparative negligence and pure comparative negligence, and to recommend which framework would be most beneficial to the state. The Commission must report its findings and any legislative recommendations to the 2026 Regular Session of the 2025 General Assembly. The act becomes effective when it becomes law.
HB969 does not itself change North Carolina negligence law; instead, it creates a legislative study that could lead to future reforms. Its immediate legal effect is to task the Legislative Research Commission with evaluating the state’s contributory negligence doctrine and potential replacement frameworks, which are central to civil liability and tort litigation. If later legislation follows the study, the bill could affect how fault is allocated in personal injury and other negligence cases, with implications for plaintiffs, defendants, insurers, businesses, and consumers.
The available context shows no recorded committee debate or vote history, so there is no direct evidence of controversy or support levels from the transcript record. Based on the bill text, the measure appears procedural and exploratory rather than immediately regulatory, suggesting a neutral-to-cautious posture focused on policy analysis. The inclusion of multiple negligence frameworks and fiscal-impact questions indicates an intent to gather information before any substantive change is proposed.
The main point of contention is the underlying policy question of whether North Carolina should keep contributory negligence or move to a comparative negligence system. Supporters of study may view contributory negligence as outdated or overly harsh to injured parties, while opponents may prefer it because it can limit liability and litigation costs. The bill specifically flags fiscal impacts on insurance, businesses, consumers, and individuals, indicating that those groups are likely to be central to any future debate over reform.