If you were injured in an accident, you may assume you cannot recover compensation if you were partly responsible. In California, that is generally not the case. California follows a pure comparative negligence system, which means an injured person can recover damages even if they were mostly at fault. Their compensation is reduced according to their percentage of responsibility.
For example, if your damages total $100,000 and you are found 25% responsible, your recovery would be reduced to $75,000. Even someone found 90% or 99% responsible may still have a claim, although the amount recovered would be substantially reduced.
This makes comparative negligence in California especially important when an insurance company argues that an injured person caused or contributed to an accident. Let’s explore different aspects of comparative negligence. If you need to talk with an attorney about your injuries, contact the Law Offices of Fernando D. Vargas today. Consultations are free and confidential.
Key Takeaways
- California follows a pure comparative negligence system. This allows people to seek compensation if they were partly or mostly at fault in an accident.
- Under pure comparative negligence, your compensation is reduced by your share of liability. That means if you are awarded $100,000 and were 75% at fault, you would still receive $25,000.
- Insurance companies may shift more blame on to you in order to reduce their settlement payouts. A lawyer can help push back against these claims to maximize your compensation.
Understanding Comparative Negligence in California Personal Injury Cases
California law generally requires people to use reasonable care to avoid causing harm to others. California Civil Code § 1714 establishes the general rule that a person is responsible for injuries caused by their lack of ordinary care or skill.
The Division of Fault Among Parties
When more than one person may have contributed to an accident, California uses comparative fault to determine how responsibility should be divided. The injured person’s own conduct can be considered when determining the amount of damages they may recover.
California’s jury instructions address this directly. The defendant generally has the burden of establishing that some percentage of fault should be attributed to the plaintiff.
This means being accused of partial responsibility does not automatically end a personal injury claim.
Pure Comparative Fault vs. Modified Comparative Fault Systems
States use different approaches to comparative negligence.
What Is Modified Comparative Negligence?
Under a modified comparative negligence system, an injured person may be barred from recovering if their percentage of fault reaches a certain threshold, commonly 50% or 51%.
How Pure Comparative Negligence Is Different
California does not follow that approach. California uses pure comparative fault, which allows an injured person to recover damages even when their percentage of responsibility is greater than the other party’s.
How Comparative Negligence Affects Your Personal Injury Compensation
Your percentage of fault can directly reduce the compensation you receive. That reduction can apply to damages supported by your claim, including medical expenses, lost income, property damage, and applicable non-economic damages.
Suppose another driver caused a collision, but the insurance company argues that you were traveling slightly too fast. If your total damages are $100,000 and you are ultimately found 20% responsible, your recovery could be reduced to $80,000.
The dispute is therefore not simply whether you have a claim. It can also involve how much responsibility should be assigned to you.
Other Examples of How Partial Fault Affects Compensation
Consider a $200,000 injury claim:
- 10% fault means a potential recovery of $180,000.
- 40% fault means a potential recovery of $120,000.
- 75% fault means a potential recovery of $50,000.
- 99% fault means a potential recovery of $2,000.
The math is straightforward. Determining the correct percentage of fault is often much harder. This is why fault allocation in personal injury cases in California can become a major point of contention during settlement negotiations.
How Is the Percentage of Fault Determined in a California Injury Claim?
Fault can be determined based on evidence of how the accident happened and how each person’s conduct contributed to the resulting harm. Depending on the case, this may include:
- Witness testimony
- Photographs
- Video
- Accident reports
- Physical evidence
- Medical records
- Expert testimony
In litigation, a jury may be asked to assign percentages of responsibility among the parties based on the evidence presented.
Real-World Examples: Recovering Damages When You Are Partially at Fault
Imagine a driver runs a red light and crashes into your vehicle. You suffered a serious back injury and accumulated $80,000 in medical expenses and other damages.
The other driver’s insurer argues that you were also responsible because you were traveling a few miles per hour over the posted speed limit. If a factfinder determines that the other driver was 90% responsible and you were 10% responsible, your $80,000 in damages could be reduced by 10%, leaving a potential recovery of $72,000.
The same principle can apply in pedestrian accidents, motorcycle collisions, premises liability cases, and other personal injury claims.
A police report, citation, or statement from an insurance adjuster does not necessarily determine the final percentage of fault in a civil claim. The evidence surrounding the accident still matters.
How Insurance Companies Distort Fault to Reduce Settlement Payouts
Insurance companies have a financial incentive to minimize the amount they pay on injury claims. One way to do that is to argue that the injured person bears a larger share of responsibility.
Focusing on Minor Details While Obscuring the Bigger Picture
An adjuster may focus on a small fact while ignoring the broader circumstances of the accident. For example, an insurer might argue that a driver who was struck from behind was partially responsible because the driver changed lanes shortly before the collision.
The issue is not whether the injured person made any mistake. The issue is whether that conduct actually contributed to the accident and, if so, what percentage of responsibility is supported by the evidence.
Recorded statements, photographs, vehicle damage, witness testimony, surveillance footage, medical records, accident reconstruction, and other evidence may all affect the analysis.
Do Not Go It Alone When Thousands Could Be at Stake
If you are considering handling your own claim, remember that you could be jeopardizing the full value of your claim. An attorney is essential for pushing back against claims that you were more at fault for your injuries than the evidence shows.
For more information, we recommend reading about the potential problems with handling a car accident claim yourself.
Proving Negligence and Minimizing Your Share of Liability in CA
To challenge an allegation of comparative fault, your legal team needs evidence. Depending on the circumstances, that may include photographs of the accident scene, traffic-camera or surveillance footage, vehicle damage, witness statements, medical records, police reports, electronic data, and expert analysis.
The goal is not to simply deny responsibility. A strong claim identifies what each person did, connects that conduct to the accident, and uses available evidence to establish an appropriate allocation of fault.
For an injured person facing a partial fault car accident in California, this can make a significant difference in the value of the claim.
The Judicial Council of California’s CACI instructions provide guidance on comparative fault and the allocation of responsibility. CACI No. 405 specifically addresses comparative fault of the plaintiff.
How the Law Offices of Fernando D. Vargas Protects Your Settlement
Attorney Fernando D. Vargas began his legal career in 1987 as a defense attorney representing insurance companies. That experience gives him firsthand knowledge of how insurers evaluate claims and argue about liability.
Today, the Law Offices of Fernando D. Vargas represents injured people throughout the Inland Empire and Southern California. We investigate the circumstances surrounding an accident, address arguments about comparative fault, and work to protect the compensation supported by the evidence.
We have recovered more than $100 million for clients in verdicts and settlements. We also provide bilingual legal services in English and Spanish, and can accommodate home or hospital visits when appropriate.
Most importantly, we also work on a contingency-fee basis. This means clients do not pay attorney fees unless we recover compensation. If we don’t win, you don’t pay.
Get in Touch with a Lawyer About Your Case
If you were injured and someone has told you that you were partly responsible, that does not necessarily mean you have no case. California’s pure comparative fault rule may still allow you to recover compensation. To set up a free consultation with a proven personal injury lawyer, contact the Law Offices of Fernando D. Vargas today.
How do insurance adjusters use comparative fault against unrepresented victims?
An insurance adjuster may argue that the injured person contributed to the accident or made the resulting injuries worse. Increasing the claimant’s percentage of fault can reduce the amount the insurer may have to pay.
That is one reason a claimant should be careful about giving recorded statements, making assumptions about fault, or accepting an early settlement before understanding the full value of the claim.
If an insurer has blamed you for an accident, speaking with an experienced personal injury attorney can help you understand whether that percentage of fault is supported by the evidence.