In California, cruising down the road on a warm, sunny day is part of the beauty of living in the Golden State. However, it is in the interest of every California driver to know the state operates on pure comparative fault.
Most Californians drive around without an understanding of its comparative negligence law and apportionment of fault. If you haven’t heard of comparative fault, don’t fret as you are not alone. Here’s the inside scoop on California’s comparative negligence law and apportionment of fault.
Explaining Comparative Fault
California’s pure comparative fault is legalese for the ability to recover damages even if one is upwards of 99% at fault. Comparative fault applies to the vast majority of California personal injury cases, ranging from auto accidents to medical malpractice and even slip and fall accidents.
A jury decides the percentage of one’s negligence to determine which specific parties contributed to the injury. If it is determined that the victim was partially responsible for his or her own harm, the ensuing damages are decreased by the apportionment of fault.
How Comparative Fault Differs From Other Related Doctrines
When you meet with our California car accident attorneys, you’ll learn about the legal process. The discussion might veer toward two specific doctrines relevant to the case.
California comparative fault is distinct from the doctrine of modified comparative fault that prevents recovery of damages if the alleged victim was more than 50% responsible for the incident. Moreover, comparative fault is distinct from California contributory negligence that prevents recovery if the alleged victim was even slightly at fault.
The Apportionment of Fault
Though it is possible to receive 100% of the damages, such an outcome is attainable if only one party is completely at fault. In general, it is common for juries or judges to divide fault across parties. Damages are decreased following each party’s apportionment of fault that played a part in causing the accident. Courts apportion fault based on juror decisions. The judge provides jurors with specific instructions to gauge the level of fault.
There is the potential for fault to be apportioned across several defendants as well as the plaintiff. However, if the defendant proves the plaintiff was negligent and that negligence played a part in causing the ensuing harm, the damages will be decreased by the jury’s decision regarding the plaintiff’s percentage of responsibility.
If the injured party is primarily responsible for the crash or other accident, he or she is still empowered to take legal action against parties that are at fault. The goal is to collect damages to mitigate the cost of medical care, car repairs, etc. Though such an outcome is possible, the jury will decrease the award by apportionment of fault due to California’s comparative negligence.
Comparative Fault and Contributory Negligence
California’s status as a comparative fault state empowers accident victims to obtain damages even if they were partially at fault. It wasn’t long ago when the state adhered to the California contributory negligence standard in which an individual who was even slightly responsible for the crash was barred from recovering damages. California’s comparative law has been in effect since 1975.
The Possibility of Multiple Lawsuits
There is a chance that both parties involved in the accident will sue one another. If both drivers or other parties to the accident share fault and each endures injury, the process will play out as follows.
The initial party to file a lawsuit will face a counterclaim. The matter then goes to a jury to determine fault. If the jury decides each party shares in fault, the members of that panel will decide the percentage of fault and respective damage. The damages are then offset against one another or both parties will be provided with their respective awards.
Apportionment of Fault
The apportionment of fault in California car crashes typically centers on comparative fault as there are usually several parties attributing blame to one another. It is possible for a driver to smash into another vehicle, yet the resulting injuries might be exacerbated by the fact that the victim failed to wear a safety belt. It is the jury’s responsibility to gauge the correct apportionment of fault, thereby reducing the damages awarded.
There is also the potential to attribute responsibility for auto accidents to parties that were not driving at the time of the collision. The makers of vehicles, construction personnel, auto mechanics, and even municipalities can be found fully or partially liable for auto accidents. Pinpointing potential defendants in car crash cases requires a considerable amount of analysis.
A superficial review of the accident will focus on the drivers. Alternatively, an experienced attorney’s in-depth analysis will encompass potential liability on behalf of parties ranging from drivers to automakers, mechanics, government entities, and more.
Gomez Law exhausts all potential possibilities to highlight even slightly negligent parties in our effort to maximize the value of your case. Let us handle the legal side of your accident while you focus on recuperating and we’ll do everything within the confines of the law to ensure justice is served.
FAQ
1. Does California recognize contributory negligence or comparative fault?
California lawmakers passed comparative law in 1975, replacing the contributory negligence standard in the spirit of fairness.
2. What is an example of contributory negligence?
Consider a scenario in which a driver is applying makeup while approaching a stop sign. The driver slams on the brakes at the last moment to reach a full stop only for that sudden stop to result in a rear-end collision. The driver’s failure to provide due care while applying makeup while operating a motor vehicle contributed to the crash. The trailing driver’s tailgating also contributed to the accident.
3. Who determines the percentage of fault?
A jury reviews evidence to determine the percentage of fault.
4. How does comparative negligence work with multiple responsible parties?
Situations inevitably arise in which several parties are at fault for a crash and injury. In such instances, comparative damages are no different than cases in which there is a single defendant. The jury is empowered to attribute fault across all parties, including several defendants as well as the injured party.
Schedule a Free Consultation With Gomez Law
For help, contact Gomez Trial Lawyers today for a free consultation by calling 866-TRIAL LAW (866-874-2552) or by contacting us online.