Car Accident Fault and Getting What You’re Owed

April 21st, 2010. By Kristine B

If you’re one of those people who “don’t like to focus on fault”, you’ll quickly find yourself focusing on it should you be involved in a car accident. Not that anyone likes pointing fingers, but unfortunately, the state you live in probably uses a little finger-pointing to determine what damages should be awarded to each party in the aftermath of an accident. Some states use either Contributory or Comparative Negligence to determine damages…and you should know which, if any, your state uses.

 

Since I spoke with Missouri attorney John Page about comparative negligence, I thought it would be a great idea for this edition of Pleading Ignorance to explain what comparative negligence is, and compare it to contributory negligence. Knowing whether your state uses contributory negligence, comparative negligence—or even modified comparative negligence will help you to determine what damages you are entitled to if you are in a car accident. 

Note—here’s a refresher on negligence in general. Also, a number of you are probably familiar with the concepts of “Fault” and “No Fault” car insurance states—they’re related to this topic, but we won’t cover those here; look for them in an upcoming Pleading Ignorance. Now, back to car accident negligence… 

Contributory Negligence 

Contributory negligence is a system of fault in which the injured party can only obtain compensation for injuries and damages if he or she did not contribute to the accident in any way. This means that if you’re in a car accident and the driver of the other vehicle is 99 percent at fault but you are 1 percent at fault, you won’t receive any damages. You’re out of luck. You can’t in any way be even a little bit at fault for the accident or you’ll get nothing in monetary damages.  

So, to use an example: let’s say that Becky is attempting to make a left turn at an intersection. Chris speeds through the intersection on a red and hits Becky. The jury finds Chris 80 percent responsible and Becky 20 percent responsible for not seeing him coming and preventing the accident. If the accident occurs in a state with a pure contributory negligence system (meaning that it follows only contributory negligence), Becky will not get any monetary damages awarded. 

The idea is that a person who negligently causes another person harm should not be liable if the injured party contributed to her own injury and suffering. Only five states follow pure contributory negligence. Others have adopted some form of comparative negligence. 

States that use pure contributory negligence are:

Alabama

District of Columbia

Maryland

North Carolina

Virginia 

Comparative Negligence 

In comparative negligence, the injured party can recover damages even if she was partially at fault in causing the accident. In a pure comparative system, the plaintiff’s award is reduced by the amount of her fault in the accident.

So, to use the above car accident, say the jury determined Becky’s damages were $100,000 dollars. Becky would receive 80 percent of the $100,000 because she was 20 percent at fault in the accident. It’s probably not as much as she’d like to receive, but better than she’d do in a contributory negligence state. 

States that follow pure comparative negligence are:

Alaska

Arizona

California

Florida

Kentucky

Louisiana

Mississippi

Missouri

New Mexico

New York

Rhode Island

South Dakota

Washington 

Some states have what is called modified comparative fault. This is where there is a cap on how much responsibility the injured party can have in the accident. In some states, there is a 50 percent rule. This means that Becky can only recover her damages if her fault in the accident is 49 percent or less. If the jury determines Becky is 55 percent at fault, she will not recover any damages. 

Other states have a 51 percent rule. This is similar to the 50 percent rule, but sets the cap at half the fault. Basically, Becky can recover damages even if she is half at fault in the accident. But if she is more than half at fault, she can’t recover any damages.

Tags: Negligence, Pleading Ignorance

This was posted on Wednesday, April 21st, 2010 at 3:09 pm and is filed under Accidents, Automotive, Pleading Ignorance . Feel free to respond, or trackback. Read our comments policy.