As you approach a personal injury lawsuit in California, one of the most important concepts you will need to learn about is comparative negligence. This legal concept is important because it could theoretically prevent you from suing under certain circumstances. On the other hand, comparative negligence can allow you to sue in many other situations. Some people might be dissuaded from pursuing legal action because they are not aware of how comparative negligence works, which is why it is so important for injured victims to gain a basic understanding of the concept.

But what exactly is comparative negligence? Perhaps the best way to learn more about this subject is to book a consultation with an experienced personal injury. Not only can they draw upon years of experience when explaining how this works, but they can also let you know how comparative negligence applies to your specific situation. This degree of personalized guidance is absent in internet articles. That said, internet research represents a positive starting point – so let’s find out more about comparative negligence in California personal injury lawsuits:

What is Comparative Negligence?

Comparative negligence is a way of dividing fault in a personal injury lawsuit. As you might have guessed, there are many situations in which different people contribute to the same accident. These accidents are not always caused by one specific person but rather by a collection of negligence parties who each contribute to the accident in different ways. One of the key aspects of comparative negligence is that even the victims themselves may be responsible for their own accidents.

What happens when different people cause the same accident? Under a system of comparative negligence, the court would determine the degree to which each person is responsible. For example, two people who cause an accident may each be 50% negligent. The key point is that the victim may have caused their own accident in some way. In a “pure” comparative negligence state like California, the victim can always file a personal injury lawsuit if they partially caused their own accident. As long as someone else was at least 1% responsible for the accident, the victim can sue them – even if the victim was 99% responsible for their own injuries.

Not all states follow a system of “pure” comparative negligence. Some follow a system of “modified” comparative negligence, which means that they put limits on a plaintiff’s ability to sue. For example, some states state that a plaintiff cannot sue if they were more than 50% responsible for their own injuries. Because California has no limitations such as these, it is one of the most supportive states for injured victims – allowing them to sue under a wide range of circumstances.

 Comparative Negligence vs. Contributory Fault

Understanding comparative negligence is easier when you consider the alternatives. Although it is now very rare, some states follow a system of contributory fault. Seen as a somewhat outdated and archaic approach, contributory fault is a system totally at odds with California’s approach of “pure” comparative negligence.

While victims can sue even if they were 99% responsible for their own injuries in California, contributory fault flips this system on its head. In states with a contributory fault system in place, victims cannot sue even if they were 1% responsible for their own injuries. In other words, you need to be completely faultless if you want to sue in a contributory fault state.

Contributory fault is considered archaic because, at one point, all states followed this system. Even California once forced victims to pay for their own medical expenses if they were just 1% responsible for their own accidents.

Comparative Negligence in Car Accidents

Comparative Negligence is important when suing for a car accident in California. Car crashes often involve numerous negligent parties. It can be difficult to determine who truly “caused” some car accidents, especially when you consider things like chain-reaction crashes and the “domino effect” of certain collisions. For example, one car might swerve out of its lane, causing another vehicle to swerve and strike a third car. In this situation, the at-fault vehicle is the first car that swerved out of the lane. But the second vehicle might also be at fault, especially if they were following too close behind.

Another example involves an intersection. Who is at fault if a driver speeds through a red light, striking a driver who was texting and driving? These situations can be difficult to unravel, but the general consensus is that any driver who goes through a red light is committing the most negligence. Even though the victim may have been texting and driving, you might argue that even if they were not distracted, they still would have been hit.

However, this distracted driver may see a reduction in their total settlement amount due to their negligence. This is another important aspect of comparative negligence in California. For example, a court might find that they were 25% responsible for the crash because they were texting and driving at the time of the collision. The driver who ran the red light might be 75% negligent.

In this situation, the distracted driver would only receive 75% of their total settlement. This is because their own degree of fault (25%) is subtracted from their “normal” compensation. On the other hand, the driver who ran the red light might also have the opportunity to sue. They would receive only 25% of their normal settlement amount because they were 75% responsible for causing the crash.

Even though the comparative negligence system allows you to sue if you were 99% responsible for your own crash, it might not be wise to do so. You have to ask yourself if this is really worth your time – especially if your normal settlement amount is relatively low. For example, 1% of a $10,000 settlement is $100, and that paltry amount is hardly worth the time-consuming stress of a personal injury lawsuit.

It is also worth mentioning that California follows an “at-fault” or “tort-based” system when it comes to car accidents. If you were injured in a car accident, you will need to prove negligence when pursuing compensation. This means that you must point the finger at another driver, and you must show that your injuries are legitimate. There are four elements of negligence that you must establish:

  • Duty of Care: First, you must show that the defendant owed you a duty of care. In other words, there was a reasonable expectation that they would ensure your safety to a certain degree.
  • Breach of Duty: You also need to show that they breached this duty in some way. For example, someone might have been driving recklessly before a crash. Or perhaps a grocery store owner allowed a spill to sit on one of the aisles without cleaning it up.
  • Causation: Next, you will need to show that the breach of duty led directly to your injuries. For example, you would need to show that a speeding vehicle caused you to crash. But if there is no causation, you cannot sue. For example, you might have slipped in an aisle with no spills. Even if a spill exists in another aisle, there is no causation.
  • Injuries: Finally, you will need to prove that your injuries are legitimate by showing your medical records, medical images, doctors’ notes, and so on.

Who Decides How Much Negligence I Have?

It is worth working alongside a qualified personal injury attorney if you were partially responsible for your own accident. Why? Because these legal professionals can help you get that percentage down as low as possible, allowing you to access more of your settlement. For example, you might be accused of being 50% responsible for an accident. But with help from a qualified, experienced personal injury attorney, you can prove that you were really only 25% responsible. This can make all the difference if you are trying to cover expensive medical treatments and missed wages.

Your attorney might help you lower your own fault in a number of different ways. They might use certain evidence to prove that you were not even using your phone at the time of the crash. They might show that a breathalyzer test result is unreliable. Your lawyer might also focus on the other driver(s), showing that their negligence is actually much greater than it seems. Each situation is slightly different, and you will need to adjust your legal strategy based on your specific circumstances.

Where Can I Find a Personal Injury Attorney in California?

 If you have been searching for a qualified personal injury attorney in California, look no further than Miracle Law, APC. Although comparative negligence can certainly cause a few issues for injured plaintiffs, there is no reason it has to stop you from pursuing compensation. With help from a qualified attorney, you can show that you are fully justified in filing your lawsuit – even if you were partly responsible for your own accident. To learn more about comparative negligence and everything else related to a personal injury lawsuit, be sure to book a consultation as soon as possible. We will guide you toward solid results.