In the State of California, you have the right to file a personal injury lawsuit after an accident — even if you are partially to blame. This is thanks to California’s comparative negligence law. While you retain the right to pursue legal action, any shared fault could still impact your potential recovery.
Questions regarding comparative negligence are complicated, and it is not always possible to find those answers on your own. The team at Gomez Trial Attorneys are available to help you maximize your recovery and determine your degree of fault after a car crash. Talk to a San Diego car accident lawyer today to get started.
What Happens If I Am Partially at Fault
Most of the jurisdictions in the United States have adopted some form of comparative negligence law, and California is no exception. However, there are different types of comparative negligence systems, and the differences can be striking. California enacted an approach known as pure comparative negligence.
Under pure comparative negligence, you have the opportunity to pursue legal action even if you are primarily at fault for a crash. You are only barred from recovering compensation if you were solely responsible for the collision.
Under pure comparative fault rules, there is no cutoff point where you can no longer file suit as long as the other driver is partially to blame. If you were 90 percent at fault for a crash, you could seek compensation from the driver that was 10 percent to blame.
That said, there are two important factors to consider. First, your compensation will be reduced by your degree of fault. That means if a jury determines you are 90 percent responsible, you will see your total damages reduced by 90 percent across the board.
Second, you could also be the target of a personal injury lawsuit by the other party. This you might be entitled to 10 percent of your damages like in the example mentioned above, but that means you could be on the hook for 90 percent of the other driver’s losses.
Example of California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Laws
The best way to visualize how the state comparative negligence law works is by seeing it in action. Consider the following example. You are involved in a motor vehicle collision on the way to work. The other driver failed to stop at a stop sign, striking you while you were lawfully entering an intersection. However, you were reading a text message on your phone, preventing you from noticing the impending crash and potentially avoiding it.
The case goes to trial before a jury of your peers. They determine that your total losses from the accident equal $100,000. If you, the other party, were entirely at fault, that is the award you would receive. However, it works differently in shared fault scenarios.
At trial, the jury also determines that you were ten percent responsible for the accident. Because you were to blame to that degree, the total amount awarded to you must be reduced by ten percent as well. This leaves you with a jury verdict of $90,000.
How Is Pure Comparative Fault Different From Other Systems?
California is one of only 12 states that have adopted a pure comparative fault model. Other states have opted to take a different approach. The most common standard is modified comparative negligence. Instead of allowing a plaintiff to file a lawsuit regardless of their degree of fault, some states set a cutoff that bars them from seeking any recovery after a certain point. Typically, this occurs when the plaintiff is either 50 or 51 percent liable for an accident. When this threshold is met, a plaintiff is entirely barred from any recovery.
A handful of states still operate under the contributory negligence standard. This approach has fallen out of favor, given how restrictive it is for injury victims. Under this standard, you are barred from recovering compensation following an accident if you share in the blame for a collision — even a small percentage. In the example discussed previously, being 10 percent liable for a collision would be enough to cost you any recovery in your case.
What if There Are Multiple Defendants?
Car accidents can be messy, chaotic events. In many situations, they involve more than just two motorists. This can complicate a number of aspects regarding a car accident injury case, including the comparative fault standard.
Thankfully, how these cases are handled is fairly straightforward when you understand pure negligence rules. A jury has the duty of apportioning a share of the fault for the accident to all liable parties. This must add up to 100 percent, whether it is a shared obligation between two people or a car crash with a 10-vehicle pileup.
When there are two or more defendants, the legal standard known as “joint and several liability” comes into play. This allows you to recover your compensation from the defendants who have the funds to pay while leaving how that bill is split between those entities.
In other words, if you secure a verdict against two negligent drivers, you have the ability to secure the full amount of your judgment from one or the other. If one of those parties is forced to pay a larger percentage of their share as handed down by the jury, it is their job to square things with the state-level administrator.
Let the Gomez Trial Attorneys Help – Call Immediately After a Car Accident
If you were injured in a crash, you have the right to pursue legal action against all of the parties who are at fault. This is true even if you were partially to blame for a collision. Before you assume you do not have a viable case for compensation, let the team at Gomez Trial Attorneys help. Our legal professionals can ensure you are treated fairly throughout this process. Contact us as soon as possible for a free consultation.