To recover monetary compensation after a crash, you must be capable of proving that another party was to blame. So, what will happen if you are partly liable for your injuries and losses? The answer to this question varies from one state to another. States have established various laws to address negligence in personal injury-related cases. Some use the comparative negligence law, while others have adopted the contributory negligence rule. California follows the Comparative negligence standard, and its law is among the most favorable countrywide.

Comparative Negligence and Fault In Detail

The comparative fault or negligence concept governs personal injury victims' rights when partially responsible for their injuries. Because liability is established depending on guilt, whenever a victim of an accident is partly to blame, this influences the amount they can recover on their personal injury lawsuit or claim.

Comparative fault is split into three— pure comparative, modified comparative negligence, and slight-gross comparative negligence. California state follows the pure comparative negligence rule. Here, it means the victim can recover financial compensation for their injury even if they are partly to blame for the accident that caused those injuries. However, their monetary compensation will be reduced by their percentage of guilt. This is the case irrespective of how much the victim contributed to causing the collision.  For example, the victim can still recover compensation even when 99% liable. 

Three Examples of Situations that Involve Pure Comparative Negligence Law

Pure comparative negligence rule can be pretty challenging to understand through explanation, so these examples illustrate  further:

Example One: You Were Majorly to Blame for the Accident

Suppose you were driving to work, and as you approached an intersection with a long light, you decided to drive through just after the light turned red. While doing so, you T-boned another motorist whose light had only turned green. The motorist did not see you since they were on their phone. The accident made you suffer a concussion.

In this case, you would highly likely be ruled primarily responsible. If you had not run the right, the crash would not have occurred. However, the other motorist may also have had a chance to prevent the accident had they been attentive. Say the court or insurance company rules you to be 90% liable for the collision and your entire compensation amount is 100,000 dollars. In this case, your compensation amount would be reduced by 90%, meaning you would recover only 10% of the amount, which is $10,000.

Example Two: You Were Only Slightly to Blame for the Accident

Suppose you were driving on a highway at a speed slightly higher than the stipulated speed limit. Suddenly, another auto came speeding behind you and hit your car's rear bumper as it tried to overtake you in a traffic jam. You could not control your vehicle, suffered an accident, and sustained an arm injury and broken bones.

In this case, the chances of the other motorist being found primarily responsible for your injury are higher. However, the insurance company or court may try placing a percentage of the fault on you because you were slightly speeding. Suppose the company/court found you 10% responsible, and your financial recovery is worth a hundred thousand dollars. In this case, your rightful recovery would be 90% of your total compensation amount, which is $90,000.

Example Three: The Defendant and You Were Equally to Blame

Suppose you were driving to work, and as you came close to an intersection with a long light, you decided to drive through just after the light turned red. Unluckily, another motorist coming from your opposite side made the same decision as you, and when the motorist tried turning left in front of you, you collided nearly head-on. The accident made you suffer a head injury and other severe injuries.

This is a complex case. Whereas there are various possible outcomes, in this case, we will assume an insurance company or jury would rule the other motorist, and you were equally responsible for the crash. If your compensation amount totals 50,000 dollars, you will recover 50 percent of that amount, which equals 25,000 dollars.

Apart from California, other states that follow the pure comparative fault rule include, among others, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, New York, and Louisiana.

Modified Comparative Fault Rule

Most states have adopted the modified comparative fault law. Modified comparative fault states generally use the 51 percent bar rule or the 50 percent bar rule. In states that use the 50 percent bar rule, the victim cannot recover any compensation if they are 50 percent or more to blame for the collision. This means a personal injury victim can only recover compensation if they are 49 percent or less at fault. States that follow the 50 percent bar rule include, among others, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, and Nebraska.

In states that follow the 51 percent bar rule, an injury victim cannot recover any compensation if their degree of fault for the collision is 51 percent or more. This means a victim can only recover damages if they are 50 percent or less liable. States that follow this rule include, among others, Nevada, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and New Hampshire.

Slight/Gross Comparative Negligence

South Dakota is the only state that follows the slight-gross comparative negligence rule. Here, fault percentages apportioned in a collision are determined by gross or slight contributions to the crash. Under this rule, unless a plaintiff's negligence was slight, they are barred from suing the party that was primarily to blame for damages. For instance, if a victim's fault was 45% while the other involved party's fault was 55%, the victim cannot sue for damages. However, if the victim's fault was 1% while that of the other involved party was 99%, the victim can sue for damages.

The question here would be, what is the borderline between gross and slight negligence? Is 25 percent fault slight or gross? The Supreme Court of South Dakota once ruled that 30 percent fault was beyond slight in a given case.  However, the same 30 percent might be considered slight in a case with different facts.

Pure Comparative Negligence Law Applies to All Forms of Accidents

Whereas the examples we provided above all involve vehicle crashes, California's pure comparative negligence law does apply to all kinds of personal injury claims or lawsuits. If you sustained an injury while at your workplace, suffered a slip and fall accident, or were hurt in any given situation you think another person might be partially or fully at fault, you could reach out to a personal injury attorney for a consultation about your rights to compensation.

How Comparative Negligence Applies in Vehicle Accident Cases

Auto accidents in California usually involve comparative fault claims and lawsuits. This is frequently so because several parties are involved in the collision, and there could be numerous likely causes of an auto accident. Auto accidents that could involve comparative negligence include:

  • Truck accidents
  • Head-on collisions
  • Ridesharing vehicle collisions
  • Bus accidents
  • Crashes with a drunk-driving motorist or a driver under the influence of drugs

In multi-auto accidents, each involved party may accuse the other, alleging they caused the crash. Various non-driver respondents could also be held responsible for car accidents. These include the city, construction crews, and vehicle manufacturers.

In a vehicle crash, when one respondent claims the victim was partly to blame for the collision, the jury determines to what extent each party contributed to causing the injuries. The plaintiff's compensation amount is then lowered by their percentage of guilt in contributing to the collision.

How the Comparative Negligence Rule Applies in Premises Liability Cases

Premises liability forms another source of claims/lawsuits where the comparative negligence law is applied. In general, the property occupier or owner is responsible for dangerous conditions on their property. These accidents could occur at the workplace, in restaurants, amusement parks, malls, or hotels. In California, a property owner has the legal duty to maintain and inspect their property, repair possibly dangerous conditions on the property, and warn about any hazardous conditions.

But most accidents happening on private properties result from a combination of the victim's negligent act and hazardous conditions. When the victim is partly liable for an accident on private property, their recovery may be lowered by their percentage of fault.

How Comparative Negligence Law Applies in Product Liability Cases

Product liability-related cases involve claims/lawsuits holding the victim liable (or partly at fault) for their injuries. Under the state's product liability statutes, a party that sells, designs, or manufactures a faulty product is held strictly responsible for the harm the product causes, even if that party did not act negligently.

The state's strict liability law applies to insufficient warning defects, design defects, and manufacturing defects of products.

However, allocation of liability will still apply in strict liability cases of product defects. An accident entailing a faulty product can partially result from the victim's negligent actions. If that is the case, the jury will reduce the victim's compensation amount depending on their percentage of fault contributing to the accident.

How the Extent of Liability is Decided Under the Comparative Negligence Law

Generally, liability is decided either by the jury or judge in court. During a personal injury case trial, the jury receives instructions about the plaintiff's comparative fault. The comparative fault jury instructions are 'the defendant alleges that the victim's own negligence contributed or led to their injury.'

To prevail in their claim, the respondent has to show that the victim was negligent and their negligence was a significant factor in causing their injury. If the respondent proves these two elements, the plaintiff's compensation amount will be lowered by the jury's determination of the degree of their (plaintiff) fault.

When apportioning liability among the plaintiffs, defendants, and other parties involved, the percentages must total 100%.

The jury then makes a distinct finding of the complainant's total compensation amount (if any). It determines the compensation amount without considering the percentage of the fault it apportions to the complainant. Eventually, each respondent will owe the complainant an amount equivalent to the percentage of the compensation amount for which they are liable for the complainant's total compensation amount.

Comparative Negligence Law Application Where Both Parties Involved Sue One Another for Compensation

At times both parties that have been in a collision are responsible and are both hurt. In this scenario, after one party brings a suit, the other, who is now the respondent, would then bring a counterclaim. Should the jury determine that both individuals are partly to blame for the accident, it will establish fault and damages separately. Once the jury calculates the compensation amount for the parties and assigns liability, the compensation amount will be balanced between each party, or each individual will obtain separate awards.

For instance, Emile is jaywalking on the street and is knocked down by Steve, who was driving while texting. She suffers a broken leg and sues Steve for damages. Steve files a counterclaim for his vehicle repair as it turns out the car developed a dent.

In court, the jury establishes that Emile's damages are $10,000 while Steve's damages are $20,000. Also, the jury determines that Emile is 60% to blame while Steve is just 40% guilty. Consequently, Emile has the right to recover $4,000 (40% of $10,000) from Steve while Steve has the right to recover $12,000 from Emile (60% of $20,000).

Who Pays for Damages If Two People Are Both to Blame for the Accident?

When the victim is hurt in an accident, and two defendants are liable, the victim can recover compensation from either respondent or both. This is called joint and several liability. The victim can collect the entire compensation amount awarded from any of the respondents responsible for their injuries.

Joint and several liability lowers the burden of recovering compensation from all liable parties. It is then upon the respondent to sue one another for the contribution of the compensation amount awarded.

In California, joint and several liability usually applies to special (economic) damages, such as lost earning capacity, lost income, property damage, and medical expenses.

The percentage for non-economic (general) damages (like loss of enjoyment of life) may have to be recovered from each liable party.

How the Comparative Negligence Rule Applies When a Case Has Three or More Responsible Parties

Three or more parties are at times to blame for a personal injury. In this case, the comparative negligence rule applies the same way as with only one respondent. A jury can assign fault among all parties, including the multiple defendants and the plaintiff.

For example, Clifford is exiting a hotel after having his meal. Before he goes out of the hotel gate, he spots two customers, Edd and Dave, arguing and about to fight. Clifford rushes to try and stop them, but Edd assaults him.

Clifford sues the hotel under the state's premises liability law for poor lighting around the hotel premises and providing inadequate security. Clifford also sues Edd and Dave for assault. A jury established that Clifford's damages are $100,000. It then apportions guilt as follows:

  • Clifford: 10%
  • Edd: 50%
  • Dave: 10%
  • The hotel: 30%

Clifford's total compensation will then be reduced by his percentage of fault, which is 10%, meaning he will receive a total recovery amount of $90,000. Edd will then be required to pay 50% of the compensation amount, which is equivalent to $50,000, while Dave and the hotel will pay $10,000 and $30,000, respectively, which is equal to their degree of fault.

Comparative Negligence vs. Contributory Negligence

We now know California follows the comparative fault rule that allows plaintiffs to recover compensation even if they are partially to blame for the accident. We also know that most states have adopted the comparative negligence rule— either modified comparative fault or pure comparative negligence.

However, some states are neither pure comparative negligence nor modified comparative fault states. They follow another negligence rule known as the contributory fault rule, which is harsher than comparative fault. Under this negligence law, a victim who was even slightly to blame for an accident will not be entitled to any damages. For instance, even if the victim was 1% liable for the accident and the respondent was 99% to blame, the victim would still not recover any damages. Only five states follow the contributory negligence rule, including Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, Washington D.C, and Alabama.

Before, California applied the contributory fault rule. However, in 1975, the Supreme Court of California decided the law was unfair and replaced it with comparative negligence law, also known as shared fault.

Find a Competent Personal Injury Attorney Near Me

Do you need assistance understanding the comparative negligence rule and its application to your case? The experienced lawyers at Orange County Personal Injury Attorney can help. We work strictly with personal injury victims and know how to mount a compelling case. Apart from building a solid case, we will aggressively negotiate with the insurance providers or fight in court to ensure your right to fair compensation is upheld. For a free, confidential consultation and case evaluation, please contact us now at 714-876-1959.