Determining who is at fault for an accident is a critical component of recovering the compensation you need to cover your economic and non-economic damages, such as medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. In many cases, more than one party is at fault for the accident, sometimes including the victim.
In these cases, the legal principle of contributory fault might apply. States use different frameworks for addressing the issue. The sections below will discuss contributory fault in detail, with an emphasis on the standard California uses.
Contributory Negligence
Under this system, a victim was unable to recover any compensation if they were at all at fault for the accident. Even if the other party was mostly at fault, this system barred victims from recovering compensation.
Most states no longer use contributory negligence systems because of their harsh effect. However, a few states still use this system, including Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia. California does not use contributory negligence.
Pure Comparative Fault
On the opposite end of the spectrum of contributory negligence is pure comparative fault. Under this system, an accident victim can still recover damages regardless of their level of fault. However, their compensation can be reduced proportionately.
For example, being assigned 25% of the blame for an accident can reduce the victim’s damages by 25%. California is one of the relatively few states (around 13 in total) that follow a pure comparative fault standard.
Modified Comparative Fault
Modified comparative fault is a middle ground between the other systems. This system allows accident victims to recover compensation even if they contributed to the accident but only if their degree of negligence falls below a certain threshold.
In some states, the accident victim is barred from recovering compensation if they were 50% or more to blame; in others, the threshold is 51%. Otherwise, modified comparative fault works the same way as pure comparative fault.
California’s Pure Comparative Fault Rules
California uses a pure comparative fault system, so you can seek compensation even if you contributed to the cause of your accident. State courts instruct the jury to determine the plaintiff’s degree of fault and the total amount of damages and then calculate their recovery.
During settlement negotiations, parties often work “under the shadow of the law,” which means the issue of contributory fault can still come up even if you don’t file a lawsuit.
An Experienced Encino Personal Injury Lawyer Can Explain Your Rights
The complexities of these contributory fault rules demonstrate why it is important to work with an experienced lawyer. Although California follows the victim-friendly standard of pure comparative fault, your compensation can still be reduced significantly. Insurance companies and other at-fault parties will try to attribute more blame to you as a way to reduce their liability.
A knowledgeable lawyer from JUSTICENTER Personal Injury Lawyers can review your case and explain how California’s contributory fault rules can come into play. We can fight to defend you against insurance company allegations that you were more at fault for the accident than you were.
By conducting a thorough investigation, our Encino personal injury attorneys can gather strong evidence to establish the other party was at fault for the accident. Learn more about how we can help by contacting us for a free case review today at 818-907-3230.
