California Comparative Fault Statute in Personal Injury Cases

Personal injury claims allow injured accident victims to seek compensation after an accident. Fifty years ago, the state barred anyone from receiving compensation if they were even a little to blame for the accident. Helpfully, California changed its law. Today, the state operates under a comparative negligence or a comparative fault scheme. At The JLF Firm, we always pay attention to any allegation that our clients were careless and partially to blame for an accident. Contact us to speak with one of our lawyers about what happened. We are glad to discuss legal options in a free consultation.

There is No California Comparative Fault Statute

In some states, the legislature passed a law creating the comparative fault standard. However, in California, the state’s Supreme Court decided to apply this standard in the 1975 case Li v. Yellow Cab Company.

The case stemmed from a 1968 car accident in Los Angeles. A woman, Nga Li, was driving north on Alvarado Street when she made a left-hand turn across three lanes of traffic to enter a service station. Coming over a hill was Robert Phillips, a driver for Yellow Cab Company, who was speeding and crashed into her fender.

The judge who heard the case without a jury found that both drivers had been negligent. Mr. Phillips had been speeding through an intersection, and Ms. Li made a risky turn when oncoming traffic was too close. California’s law had once prohibited any accident victim from receiving compensation if they contributed in any way to the accident.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of California reversed and instead adopted the comparative fault rule.

From that point forward, comparative fault applies to most personal injury cases in California.

How Comparative Fault Works

Under the comparative fault rule, a jury will compare the negligence of each party in a personal injury case. The jury will need to assign a percentage of fault to each side in the legal dispute.

The simplest situation will be an accident where there is one defendant and one plaintiff—as in Li v. Yellow Cab Company, which gave rise to the comparative fault rule. A jury might assign 40% fault to one person and 60% fault to the other.

Under the law, your share of fault will reduce your damages. If you are 40% to blame but suffer $100,000 in damages, then the most you can possibly receive is $60,000. You might end up receiving less for various reasons (such as the defendant’s lack of money). However, the comparative fault rule will reduce the maximum amount you can receive based on your share of fault.

Examples of Comparative Fault

We have handled all sorts of personal injury cases where comparative fault arises:

• Car accidents. The other driver might blame you for tailgating, driving while distracted, texting and driving, or driving while fatigued. Any error behind the wheel can make you partially to blame for your crash.
• Motorcycle accidents. Motorcyclists have a reputation for taking risks. Some insurance adjusters will probably blame you for contributing to an accident and reduce your damages accordingly.
• Pedestrian accidents. A pedestrian who jumps into traffic or crosses when a “No Walking” sign is lit up shares some blame for the collision. Comparative negligence will reduce your settlement.
• Premises liability claims. If you are hurt on someone’s property, then the owner will likely say you brought the accident on yourself. For example, you might have slipped on some spilled ice because you were reading a text message, or you fell off a ladder because you didn’t set it up properly.
• Product liability. Comparative fault can also apply in strict liability cases, including cases for dangerous products which are defective. You might have carelessly used a product and suffered injury.

Comparative negligence doesn’t apply to all cases. For example, a minor cannot be negligent when under a certain age. Contact The JLF Firm to discuss the details of your accident. We can discuss in general terms how any negligence will reduce your possible claim.

California Comparative Fault Statute & A Car Accident Settlement

Comparative fault also comes into play if you hope to settle your claim. Insurance companies negotiate claims against a backdrop of what might happen if you end up going to trial. They will reduce the amount offered if they have solid proof you were negligent yourself.

For example, an insurance company might request copies of your cell phone records, which show unambiguously that you were on the phone at the time of your wreck. They might boldly claim you are 50% to blame—or even more—because you were focused on a text message. Other evidence includes witnesses who saw you distracted when you were injured.

As your lawyer, we review all evidence with a magnifying glass so we can confidently minimize your negligence. Comparative fault is easy to allege but not so easy to prove. We don’t simply agree to allocate some fault to our clients. Instead, we hold firm that you are not to blame for your injuries.

Comparative Fault versus a Duty to Mitigate Damages

As an accident victim, you also have a duty to mitigate your damages. This duty arises after the accident. You should take reasonable steps to minimize the losses you suffer.

For example, someone suffering bodily injuries should go to the doctor or hospital. IF you don’t, then the defendant might argue you are in so much pain because you didn’t seek out medical care.

A failure to mitigate damages can also reduce your settlement. Legally, however, a duty to mitigate damages is distinct. Comparative negligence refers to your actions or omissions which contributed to the accident in the first place.

Speak with an Experienced Personal Injury Lawyer

Accident victims need a passionate legal advocate in their corner if they hope to obtain fair compensation following any type of accident.

Call The JLF Firm today to schedule a free consultation. We have helped negotiate countless settlements for clients and can review what steps make sense to take.