If you were involved in a car accident that was partially your fault, it may feel like your future is bleak. However, fault isn’t necessarily a clear-cut answer in California. Due to the pure comparative negligence rule in California, you may still recover damages, even if the accident was mostly your fault.
As a top car accident lawyer in Los Angeles, the Law Offices of Jacob Ermani understands California’s comparative negligence rule and can help you maximize your settlement. Learn how the comparative negligence rule may affect your car accident settlement and how our car accident attorneys can help you get the compensation you need.
Understanding Pure Comparative Negligence in California
The California Civil Code determines that you can recover damages from an accident even if you’re 99% at fault. However, your recovery is reduced by the percentage of fault.
For example, if you were speeding, but the other driver ran a red light, even if you contributed more to the accident, California negligence laws recognize that you deserve compensation to partially cover your medical bills, lost wages, car repairs, and other related expenses. This system recognizes that almost every vehicle accident has more than one cause. Vehicle collisions are complex, with multiple drivers usually acting on instinct and contributing to the accident.
How Fault Is Determined in a Car Accident
Determining fault is a complex process that considers police reports, traffic camera footage, eyewitness reports, and, sometimes, an accident reconstruction expert. Cellphone records can also be examined in texting-while-driving cases, along with physical indicators such as skid marks, debris, and vehicle damage.
Insurance adjusters and juries look at all of these concrete facts to determine the percentage of fault for each party involved. There are a few common scenarios that influence fault percentage:
- Traffic violations (running a red light, failing to yield, speeding)
- Impaired driving (alcohol or drugs were involved)
- Distracted driving (texting while driving)
- Vehicle failures (driver was neglectful with regular tune-ups)
- Road conditions (potholes, bad weather)
Example of Comparative Negligence in Real Cases
The most famous comparative negligence case in California is Li v. Yellow Cab Co., which led the state to adopt the pure shared fault car accident rule in California. The plaintiff, Nga Li, was crossing multiple lanes and turning left onto oncoming traffic to reach a service station. At the same time, a Yellow Cab driver was speeding through a yellow light and collided with Li’s car. This case also highlights the important difference between comparative negligence vs. contributory negligence.
Both parties were at fault, and Li had medical bills for injuries. However, the court opted for contributory negligence, meaning Li’s own negligence was considered and would be completely barred from any damages recovery. Li appealed the decision to the California Supreme Court, and they reversed the decision and changed the law so California would now follow a pure comparative negligence system.
Pure vs. Modified Comparative Negligence
While a pure comparative negligence model results in damages even if you’re 99% at fault, a modified model usually has a stipulation, such as 50%. If you’re 50% or above responsible for the accident, you receive nothing. For example, if you were subject to $100,000 in medical bills, but you’re deemed 51% responsible, you’d receive no compensation. However, in California, you’d receive $49,000. California’s system is a fairer model that holds all parties accountable, no matter how much or how little they were at fault.
How Shared Fault Affects Your Settlement Value
How does fault affect car accident settlements? Insurance companies use comparative negligence to reduce your overall payout, scrutinizing every detail of your claim. They may hyperbolize little details, such as driving in the rain, to claim you were more responsible for the accident. This is why evidence from traffic cams, eye witness reports, and police reports is so important. It can disprove a false allegation and determine if the other party was more at fault.
It’s also very common for negotiations to hover around minor differences in California personal injury fault percentages. But even a 10% shift could mean thousands more dollars for you.
Common Misconceptions About Fault in California Car Accidents
There’s a common misconception that apologizing after a traffic collision is admitting fault. Fortunately, human decency doesn’t mean you accept responsibility for the accident. Here are a few more misconceptions:
- The police report determines fault: While the police report plays a huge role in determining partial fault accident compensation, it’s not the only factor.
- Tickets mean you’re more at fault: Traffic violations do come into play when determining fault percentage, but the other party could have worse violations.
- My fault percentage can’t change: The percentage can change, especially if new evidence comes to light, like a previously unknown witness coming forward.
How To Prove You Deserve a Fair Settlement
Focus on building evidence after the traffic accident, and follow these tips to prove your share of fault is minimal:
- Take photos of the accident, vehicle damage, and injuries.
- Get witnesses’ contact information before they leave.
- Seek medical attention immediately, even for minor bumps and bruises.
- Ask to see the police report and review it for inaccuracies.
- Learn what documents you need after an accident.
- Keep all receipts and bills related to the accident for reference.
Why Legal Representation Matters in Comparative Negligence Cases
Dealing with a comparative negligence case on your own is a daunting task. A professional injury lawyer at Jacob Ermani can build evidence for you, challenge unfair fault claims, and handle all communication with the insurance company.
Attorneys will work hard to build a fair case and look at every angle. They can present evidence that shows the other driver’s negligence, which helps with your settlement. Even a 10% difference in fault allocation can mean tens of thousands of dollars in a significant injury case with high expenses.
Contact Jacob Ermani for Your Car Accident Settlement Case
California’s pure comparative negligence rule gives accident victims a better chance at recovery even when they’re partly at fault. However, knowing exactly how to approach these cases can be complex and tricky. Contact Jacob Ermani to help guide you through the process and fight for the best possible settlement.