California and the majority of states within the U.S follow comparative negligence laws. These laws are also known as comparative fault laws, and they dictate the tort law principles that govern the recovery of damages during personal injury lawsuits. Under California’s pure comparative negligence rules, accident victims only receive compensation worth the accused’s percentage of fault.

For instance, if an accident victim bears 25% of the blame, they will only receive 75% compensation for damages suffered during an accident. The at-fault party would not pay 100% compensation if the victim played even the slightest role in causing an accident. Comparative fault laws apply in all injury cases, including car accidents, product liability, medical malpractice, and premises liability.

California’s Pure Comparative Fault Laws Defined

Comparative negligence is the legal doctrine or principle applicable in California during personal injury cases. The court distributes and assigns fault in complex accidents with more than one at-fault party based on this principle. Therefore, a court can divide blame between the involved parties, where the plaintiff receives compensation minus their percentage of negligence in causing their own harm.

In personal injury lawsuits, “fault” means that someone is responsible for causing harm. When a person causes damage through negligence, they must pay the injured victim for all pain, injury, and losses allied with that harm.

Comparative negligence reduces a victim’s compensation based on their contribution to causing an accident. For instance, John walks his aggressive dog without a leash. The dog runs off and wanders into Peter’s yard. Peter steps out of his car, picks a rock, and throws it at the dog. It charges toward him and bites his leg right before John comes around and puts it on a leash.

John bears most of the fault for the dog bite injuries because he walked the aggressive dog without a leash. However, Peter also bears some blame for provoking the dog and hitting it with a rock. The court can decide to assign 10% fault to peter. If the jury decides that the damages suffered are worth $10,000, Peter will only receive $9,000 compensation.

Under the pure comparative negligence standard, a victim can receive compensation even if they bear 99% of the blame in an accident. The court will award 1% of the total worth of damages as compensation. Lawyers often use comparative negligence laws as a partial defense to reduce the settlement their clients should pay accident victims.

When using comparative negligence as a defense, the attorney needs to prove that:

  • The alleged victim was also negligent
  • The victim’s negligence contributed to causing an accident or injuries

Contributory, Comparative Negligence, Modified Comparative Fault

The California Supreme Court ruled in favor of implementing Comparative fault laws in 1975. This was after lawmakers established that the contributory negligence laws were unfair. Under the doctrine, an accident victim is not eligible for compensation unless the defendant bears 100% of the blame. Even if the plaintiff suffered catastrophic injuries, they could not recover any financial compensation if they were 1% responsible for an accident.

California no longer follows the harsh contributory negligence laws, unlike North Carolina, Maryland, and Virginia. Instead, the state upholds pure comparative negligence laws where the court considers how much each party is to blame for an accident.

Pure comparative fault laws also differ from the modified comparative fault 50% rule. Under the latter, a victim can only receive compensation if their share of the blame is less than 50%. For instance, in an accident with multiple at-fault parties, the court assigns fault to the injured persons. It only awards compensation to those who bear less than 50% of the responsibility.

Irrespective of the damages you suffer, you cannot receive a dime in compensation if you are 51% responsible for an accident. However, the other party will also not receive 100% compensation. They will receive an award equivalent to the total damages minus the value of their fault percentage.

Understanding How Comparative Negligence Works in a Negligence Lawsuit

Numerous variables come into play when assigning fault and determining the degrees of the negligence of the parties involved. While insurance companies typically have the final say (unless an issue ends up in court), they base their final decision on evidence.

Proving the defendant’s fault allows plaintiffs to increase their odds of receiving a maximum recovery award. A skilled attorney will help you compile evidence that shows that the defendant:

  • Owed you a duty of care
  • Breached this duty
  • Caused your injuries (damages)

Here is how comparative fault affects different types of personal injury lawsuits:

Comparative Fault in Auto Accident Cases

In auto accidents, it is common for multiple parties to be involved. These parties can sometimes have contributed to causing an incident. It could even be that a non-driver like a pedestrian, the city, or vehicle part manufacturer is responsible for damages suffered. Again, the insurance or jury will depend on evidence when assigning fault percentages under comparative negligence laws.

For instance, they could use police reports to determine what caused an accident. It is also common for insurance adjusters to arrive at an accident scene immediately or depend on the information gathered by victims, such as photos, eyewitness accounts, and surveillance footage. Accident victims can ensure they receive the compensation they deserve by gathering as much evidence as possible before leaving the accident scene.

It is not guaranteed that a plaintiff will receive full compensation for injuries and property damage from an accident. Even if all evidence shows that another party’s negligence caused your injuries, the court will also consider the victim’s contribution to causing the accident. Under comparative negligence laws, establishing that a defendant bears fault only marks the start of a legal inquiry. The doctrine dictates that people owe each other a duty of care. This includes any persons injured in an accident.

Once the court establishes the defendant’s negligence, the next step is to calculate the economic and non-economic damages suffered by the plaintiff. The judge or jury will assign the victim’s fault percentage and deduct it from the total worth of damages.

The pure comparative negligence laws dictate that only one party can recover when two injured parties are involved. If a plaintiff is 40% responsible for the incident, the court can only offer a compensation award worth 60% of all damages.

Comparative Fault in Premises Liability

Comparative fault laws also come into play during premises liability lawsuits. Generally, a property owner (landlord) or the occupier (company or business renting the premise) is liable for damages caused by hazardous or dangerous conditions on their property.

If you own property, you owe other people accessing it a duty of care. You can exercise reasonable care by ensuring good property maintenance practices, timely repairs of potentially hazardous conditions, and providing adequate warning on areas posing dangerous conditions.

It is common for accidents within premises to stem from the property owner's negligence and the injured victim.   Under the comparative negligence principle, the court can reduce the plaintiff’s damages if they contributed to causing a premises liability accident.

Comparative Fault in Product Liability

Personal injury claims are handled differently during product liability lawsuits. California product liability laws impose strict liability for injuries caused by faulty products even if the manufacturing company was not negligent. A product manufacturer must compensate for all damages suffered when a plaintiff is injured purely because of a defect and not their own mistake or negligence.

The three main types of product liability include:

  • Manufacturing defects — A plaintiff can file a personal injury lawsuit and receive full compensation if an accident occurs because of a product’s manufacturing defect.
  • Defective design — Faulty designs are inherently flawed or dangerous and can cause injuries even when used according to the manufacturer's specifications.
  • Failure to warn — A manufacturer’s failure to provide adequate instructions or warnings about the proper use of a product can also provide grounds for a product liability lawsuit. You have a right to file a claim if your injuries stem from dangers generally not apparent to a consumer.

Sometimes, product liability cases involve the plaintiff being partially to blame for an accident. This can make comparative fault principles apply in a product liability lawsuit. If the court establishes a plaintiff contributed to causing an accident, their award is reduced based on the effect of their own negligent actions.

For example, Steven installs an elevator in his home. The elevator instructions state that it can only carry 600 lbs. at a time. Steven still proceeds to enter the lift with several boxes containing equipment weighing 1000 lbs. The elevator’s pulley system snaps, leaving Steven injured and traumatized with his equipment damaged beyond repairs.

Steven contributed to the accident by attempting to carry more weight than the elevator could safely handle. However, the lift company is also liable because the elevator did not detect the excessive weight due to a software malfunction. If the software were not faulty, the elevator doors would not have closed, forcing Steven to remove some of the equipment boxes and prevent an incident.

Because the elevator company provided a warning about the weight the lift can carry safely, Steven’s damages will likely be reduced based on his percentage of fault in causing the incident.

Understanding How Comparative Negligence Laws Work When Multiple Parties Are At Fault

When multiple parties bear the fault for an accident, comparative negligence laws work the same way as when there is only one at-fault party. The plaintiff can recover an award for all damages through the “joint and several liability” principles. Under this legal doctrine, each of the involved defendants can be held responsible for the economic damages suffered by a victim. This is irrespective of the level of fault assigned to each at-fault party.

A victim can sue the multiple at-fault parties that caused an accident. The joint and several liability doctrines protect injured parties from the trouble of collecting compensation. Instead, victims can recover full compensation and leave the at-fault parties to decide the fault percentages and seek reimbursement whenever necessary.

In a joint tortfeasor (lawsuit against multiple people), you can sue all parties involved, even if one bears 90% fault and the other only 10% fault. Once you receive compensation, the at-fault parties will decide how to share the blame and reimburse each other based on their contribution toward an injury. What matters is that you suffered single, indivisible harm caused by their combined conduct. The law allows the victim to go after whichever party with the deeper pockets and increased likelihood of providing fast compensation.

Unfortunately, “joint and several liability” only applies to economic damages like property damage, medical expenses, and loss of income. The doctrine cannot be used to receive compensation for non-economic damages like pain and suffering. You have to collect a settlement from each party based on their contribution to causing your injury.

For example, Jane, a pedestrian, is hit by a car on 5th Avenue. John, the car driver, was texting and driving but swerved and hit Jane while trying to avoid a head-on collision with Peter. After police investigations, it is established that Peter was intoxicated during the incident. Therefore, both John and Peter played a part in causing Jane’s injuries.

The case goes to trial, and Jane is awarded $100,000 in economic damages and $50,000 in non-economic damages. While Jane can collect the entire $100,000 from Peter, who has deeper pockets, she can only collect $30,000 from him for economic damages. Irrespective of John’s financial status, Jane has to collect the remaining $70,000 from him for the non-economic damages suffered.

Understanding How Comparative Negligence Laws Work When Both Parties Sue Each Other

It is common for accidents to result in two injured parties. In this scenario, the parties can point the blaming finger at each other and file lawsuits against each other.

If you believe you have suffered injuries because of another person's negligence, you can still sue them even if they file the claim first. You will need to file a counterclaim to seek compensation from the party and reduce your overall liability per California’s comparative fault laws.

Once the case proceeds to court, the jury will determine each party’s percentage of fault and put a price tag on the damages suffered. Depending on their fault percentages, the damages can be offset against each other. If they do not, each party has to collect a separate award.

For example, Gabriel runs a stop sign at an intersection. Jimmy, speeding in the opposite direction, crashes into the car, and both parties suffer injuries and property damage. Gabriel files a claim against Jimmy, who quickly files a counterclaim to recover compensation for the incurred medical bills and vehicle repair costs.

The court determines that Gabriel suffered $40,000 damages and was 25% at fault, while Jimmy’s damages are worth $100,000, and he was 75% responsible for the accident. Therefore, Gabriel is entitled to receive $30,000 compensation (75% of $40,000) while Jimmy should collect $25,000 (25% of $100,000).

Types of Damages Awarded Under Comparative Fault Law

Accidents can have devastating aftermaths. Victims suffer physical and emotional wounds that lead to economic and non-economic losses. Under California’s comparative negligence laws, there are three categories of damages a plaintiff can recover. They include:

  • Economic damages — Economic damages are monetary losses incurred because of an injury. They include but are not limited to medical expenses, lost wages, cost of property repairs or replacement, loss of earning potential, and burial costs in case of wrongful death.
  • Non-economic damages — Non-economic damages are subjective non-financial losses like pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of consortium, and loss of life enjoyment.
  • Punitive damages — Some lawsuits involve the defendant showing egregious conduct, recklessness, or a lack of regard for human life. The court can decide to award punitive damages to punish the defendant and deter others from similar conduct. Not all personal injury plaintiffs receive the award because punitive damages are not meant to compensate a victim for their injuries.

You must not underestimate the need to hire a skilled attorney if you want to receive maximum compensation for damages suffered following an accident. The lawyer must present evidence that shows your economic and non-economic damages. It is also crucial to note that most courts will not award punitive damages unless a plaintiff files a request in the claim. Punitive damages are not a matter of right. You need a competent specialist who can present solid arguments and persuade the court to punish the defendant's egregious actions.

Find a San Diego Personal Injury Attorney Near Me

If you have suffered damages in an accident caused by someone else’s negligence, it is essential to reach out to a skilled attorney immediately. At San Diego Personal Injury Law Firm, we understand the full extent of economic and non-economic damages stemming from an incident. That is why we give each case the personalized attention it deserves. Our years of experience in the field and proven track record will enhance your peace of mind as you recover. Call us at 619-478-4059 and let us fight on your behalf to bring home every dime you deserve in compensation.