18:48 Nov 24, 2011 

Thanks for all comments and suggestions. I should have mentioned the wider context, which was a judgement in a case where the plaintiff was claiming compensation for injuries allegedly sustained from using a cosmetic product. The phrase I mentioned was a complete sentence in the court's summary of the case details, with no further comments on the issue. It was impossible to see whether 'egenskyld' referred to the plaintiff or the defendant. In the end, I opted for Signe's suggestion, 'contributory negligence'.

00:14 Nov 24, 2011 

I would probably say that "there is no negligence on the part of the [description of the "egen" party]" to get around the legal problem with contributory negligence being a bar to recovery (in some jurisdictions). The "egen" party could be a policy holder, the person injured, claimant, plaintiff etc depending on the circumstances. Comparative negligence is another possibility, but you are again into legal issues relating to how negligence itself is weighed.

09:58 Nov 23, 2011 

Tak Claus, godt bud.

09:40 Nov 23, 2011 

no (contributory) fault of the claimant himself.