When you are involved in an accident, the problematic question you want to ask is who is responsible. In some accidents, it is clear the person to blame, but in others, it is unclear. At this point, the issue of comparative negligence or fault comes in. You can be the victim in an accident, but in reality, you, as the plaintiff, can have something to do with the accident. You are likely to feel overwhelmed by the complexities of negligence law when you are partially responsible because liability reduces the damages to be awarded. The information below seeks to help you understand the apportionment of fault and negligence in injury claims to eliminate the anxiety and give you peace of mind during an injury lawsuit.

Legal Definition of Negligence

Personal injury statutes define negligence as not taking action a sober or reasonable person would take under the same circumstances. Also, it could mean acting in a fashion a reasonable person could not when in your situation. The jury would consider the outcome of your conduct if a sober person was in your position to rule on the case.

Negligence plays a critical role in the recoverable recompenses in your case. However, obtaining maximum damages increases by hiring a personal injury lawyer for the lawsuit. An attorney helps you show the defendant was negligent by proving the following:

  • The accused owed you a duty of care
  • You suffered harm once the defendant breached this responsibility by acting negligently
  • The negligence by the defendant was a breach of the commitment they owed you

You owe others a duty or responsibility to exercise caution as an individual or entity. For instance, as an employer, you are responsible for providing your workers with a safe and clean work environment. The kind of duty you owe or someone owes you depends on the existing relationship. Negligence comes up when one party that owes the other a duty of care does not use it to protect others from harm. Therefore, you should hold liable the party responsible for care when they act negligently, causing you severe injury.

Liable Parties in Injury Torts

Often, injury claims involve you, the plaintiff or claimant, seeking compensation from a specific defendant. The rule of thumb in these cases is that you claim 100% of the damages when the accused is fully accountable for the mishap and subsequent injuries. Therefore, it is not unusual to be concerned about whether or not you contribute or share a percentage of the blame.

Comparative fault rules or theory apportions or allocates fault to individuals involved in an accident. As the accident victim, your injuries will be reduced by your percentage of fault. The accused is likely to argue that you contributed to the accident to some extent to minimize the damages they are to pay. Therefore, when the accused claims that you are partially at fault, the jury must determine your degree or level of responsibility. The lawsuit will close with the jury deducting your degree of blame from the total damages the victim was to pay if they were 100% liable.

Overview of Comparative Fault and Negligence

California adopts the comparative fault legal doctrine. The rule states that the recoverable damages will be reduced by the percentage of negligence attributable to you under fault allocation or apportionment. During the lawsuit, the defendant must demonstrate that your negligence, as the claimant, was an influential element in causing or contributing to your injuries. The court then decides what level of fault was caused by your negligence. Your percentage or level of responsibility reduces your overall damages.

Determining the Negligence Levels in Comparative Negligence Cases

The court allocates or apportions negligence. The jury obtains instructions on your negligence percentage in an injury lawsuit hearing. One of these instructions is that you, the claimant, contributed to the accident and its harm. The defendant should prove by a preponderance of the evidence that you were at fault and that your negligence was a substantial aspect in causing the accident and the ensuing harm.

When the tortfeasor successfully demonstrates the above factors to the court, your reimbursements will be cut by the degree of a fault the jury apportions you.

During the apportionment of negligence among you, the defendant, and additional non-parties, the percentage of the blame must be 100%.

When you are in any way to blame for the injuries, the court will make a distinct finding of your total damages without assuming that the accused is fully liable or devoid of your contribution towards the accident.

Once the case is concluded, each defendant will owe you an amount equivalent to the degree of damages they contributed to the total compensation you seek.

For instance, John walks into the neighborhood and notices Peter’s off-leash dog. He provokes the dog by throwing a rock at it. As a result of the provocation, John sustains serious dog bite wounds and decides to sue Peter for negligence because of letting the dog run without a leash.

In court, Peter argues that John is partly responsible for the dog bite wounds because he provoked the dog in the first place by throwing a stone at it. The jury concurs with Peter that John contributed to the injuries but still finds Peter liable for allowing the dog to run without a leash. If the jury apportions John 20 percent of the blame for the dog bite, the final damages he will receive will be lowered by 20%.

Comparative vs. Contributory Negligence

California adopts the comparative negligence rule that allows you to seek damages even when liable for an accident.

The state applied contributory fault before adopting the current legal doctrine. Under this previous rule, you were not eligible to seek compensation if you were slightly to blame for an accident. In 1975, the Supreme Court ruled that the contributory negligence legal doctrine should be replaced by a comparative fault rule in injury cases to bring fairness.

Only some states adopt this negligence doctrine, including Virginia, Alabama, Washington D.C., North Carolina, and Maryland. Under the rule, your injury claim will be denied if you are in any way or slightly liable for the harm. Even when you are to blame for only one percent of the accident and the other 99% is on the plaintiff, the court will not award any damages.

For example, John is visiting Alabama with a friend for a vacation. As he approaches an intersection, a speeding driver attempts to run a red light and hits his car. Unfortunately, John was not wearing a seatbelt at the accident, causing severe and life-changing injuries. John files an injury claim against the other driver for the car collision.

The jury finds that the other driver attempting to run the red light was responsible for the crash. Similarly, they find John 1% liable for his injuries because of not wearing a seatbelt while driving. Under Alabama’s Contributory negligence doctrine, John will not obtain any damages for the vehicle collision. Nonetheless, if the crash occurred in a comparative negligence state like California, John would recover damages, although less by 1%, for not having a seatbelt on while driving.

Pure Comparative Fault

The comparative fault rule takes two kinds, which are the modified and pure comparative fault principles. The states that adopt the modified comparative fault rule allow plaintiffs to collect damages if they are less than 50% liable for the harm. When a plaintiff is 50 or 51% at fault, the rule does not allow them to pursue compensation. An example of a state that adopts this rule is Nevada.

On the other hand, the pure comparative rule allows you, as a plaintiff, to pursue compensation even if you bear almost all the fault for the harm. California is among the states that adopt this legal doctrine and allows you to recover damages for the blame apportioned to the defendant.

Can Both Parties in an Accident Sue Each Other in a Personal Injury Lawsuit?

In a typical personal injury claim, one party, usually the victim, sues the other.

Nevertheless, what happens when both parties are injured and partly responsible for the mishap?

If you sustain injuries under these circumstances, you should know that the other party will likely commence a counterclaim as you seek a legal reprieve.

After examining the facts of the case, the court will allocate responsibility and damages to each of you. Each individual will obtain separate damages, which will counterbalance each other. When multiple parties are involved, the court will allocate damages based on their fault levels. If the damages do not offset each other, the court will award separate compensation.

Damage Payment When Two Individuals are to Blame for an Accident

When more than one party is responsible for your accident, the joint and several liability applies. If this is your case, the law permits you to seek compensation from all the liable parties for the total amount of economic damages. Nonetheless, if only one among the liable parties has the deep pockets to pay for your damages, you can seek compensation from them. The sued defendant can then go after other liable individuals for compensation for their percentage of responsibility in the accident.

Nonetheless, when pursuing non-economic damages, you must sue severally or separately based on their level of fault.

The economic damages you can pursue under these circumstances are:

  • Medical costs
  • Property damage
  • Lost income

Possible Defenses to Fault or Negligence

In an injury suit, you and the defendant will have an equal opportunity to argue your cases and share your perspectives. While your attorney will work hard to demonstrate the defendant was fully liable for the mishap, expect their lawyer to contest your assertions. The legal defenses for negligence are:

  1. Defendant Never Owed You a Duty of Care

California’s injury statutes assign a legal duty to exercise caution and avoid action or inaction that could hurt others. You are held accountable for your negligence when you fail to abide by this responsibility, causing someone else harm. And because the duty of care is a critical element in demonstrating negligence, the defendant can claim that they never owed you one. Whether an employer, manufacturer, or driver, they have particular duties to protect others. However, if they can prove in your case that your relationship with them does not create this duty, you will lose the case.

  1. You, the Claimant, Assumed the Danger of Suffering Harm

Employers and manufacturers understand the risk, so you sign a risk assumption or responsibility waiver agreement to be responsible for the harm from their facility or product. If this is your case, the tortfeasor will claim that you assumed the risk and, therefore, they are not accountable for your harm.

However, even though it is within the law to assume risk, a manufacturer or employer must use reasonable care to lower the risk of injury. Your injury attorney can come to your defense and find exceptions to the waiver you signed, shifting part of the blame to the defendant.

  1. You Were Liable for the Injury

When you file an injury lawsuit, you must have all the evidence to prove the defendant is answerable for your harm. Although the defendant will try and shift the blame on you, your lawyer will poke holes in their defense and present proof they are to blame for your harm. Additionally, even if you were liable, the comparative negligence rule makes it possible to obtain damages but less your percentage of fault.

Cases Where Comparative Fault is Applicable

Comparative fault is applicable in many personal injury torts. These instances include:

Car Accident Cases

In a California auto accident, many parties can be at fault because of the various proximate causes of the collisions. Examples of car accidents where the comparative fault rule is applicable include:

  • Head-on-collisions
  • Bus accidents
  • Trucking accidents
  • DUI car accidents
  • Ridesharing car crashes

When there are multiple proximate accident causes, each party will point the finger at the other for causing the crash. Vehicle collisions could be blamed on the contractor building the road, local authorities in charge of building and maintaining a road or traffic lights, vehicle manufacturer, employer, and the auto repair shop responsible for maintenance.

Under these circumstances, where the defendant claims you are partially to blame for the crash, the jury will apportion fault to each party before you can obtain damages.

Premises Liability Lawsuits

Another source of comparative negligence is premise liability. If you sustain injuries because of a hazardous condition in a building, restaurant, or amusement park, the property owner or the one charged with keeping the property safe will be liable for your harm.

Every property owner owes occupiers a duty of care that requires them to inspect and conserve their property soundly. And whenever they notice a hazardous condition, they must commence repairs immediately and adequately warn occupants of the dangerous situation.

Sadly, many accidents in many premises occur because of your negligence as the occupier and the property owner. When you are relatively to blame, the comparative negligence doctrine will apply.

Fault Allocation in Product Liability Cases

Defendants in product liability cases include product makers, sellers, and designers. These individuals are strictly liable for your injuries, even when they did not act negligently. The strict liability rule applies when a production defect, design defect, or insufficient warning information causes your injuries or illness.

While you are legally eligible to file a product liability suit against the responsible party, you can also be partly liable for the harm stemming from the faulty product. If your negligence partly led to the injuries, the jury will award you damages less your liability share in causing the accident and ensuing injuries or illness.

Damages Available in Comparative Fault Cases

The comparative negligence rule applies to injury torts pursuing general and special damages. Also called economic damages, special damages cover losses with a dollar value, and they include:

  • Present and future medical costs
  • Lost income
  • Loss of earning capability
  • Property repair or replacement
  • And the need for a caregiver

A forensic auditor will be involved in the case to attach a dollar value to all the losses stemming from your accident, illness, or injuries caused by the tortfeasor’s negligence.

On the other hand, general or non-economic losses are intangible, and you cannot attach a dollar amount to them. They include physical and emotional distress, loss of life enjoyment, and other incalculable losses from the accident. When you partner with a profound injury attorney, they identify all the damages in your case and obtain maximum compensation, even when you are somewhat liable.

Find an Experienced Los Angeles Personal Injury Attorney Near Me

The comparative fault legal doctrine is a reprieve for many plaintiffs who could have been denied the right to seek compensation under the contributory negligence rule. The LA Personal Injury Law Firm is ready to help you recover compensation or answer any questions regarding your accident, even when you are partially responsible. Do not hesitate to call us at 310-935-0089 for a zero-obligation case evaluation and consultation.