Understanding Fault in a California Personal Injury Case
Tort law is the area of the law that allows a party to seek monetary damages for injuries to his or her person or property. There are three types of torts: negligent, intentional, and strict liability. Most – but not all – personal injury cases are based on negligence. The type of tort involved determines what an injured party must prove in order to recover damages.
Tort Basics
If you suffered an injury to your person or property, the law of torts will govern your right to recover monetary compensation from the party who caused your injuries. California law recognizes three types of torts:
- Intentional – as the name implies, an intentional tort is based on someone’s intentional wrongdoing. Examples of intentional torts in California include assault and battery, false imprisonment, infliction of emotional distress, violence and abuse, and defamation.
- Strict liability – in a strict liability tort the responsible party is held liable without regard to his/her intentions nor the presence or absence of any effort to prevent the harm. In California, strict liability applies when a party is injured by a defective product or when a domestic animal with known dangerous tendencies causes harm.
- Negligent – the majority of personal injury accidents fall under the purview of negligent torts. Negligence requires the plaintiff (injured party) to prove that the defendant (who the injured party believes is responsible for the injuries and losses) breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff.
Comparative Negligence in California vs. Contributory Negligence
To recover monetary damages in a personal injury accident based on negligence, you must prove that another party was at fault. Sometimes, it is possible to prove that another party was 100 percent at fault; however, it is also often the case that more than one party was at fault (joint and several liability). Also, it is possible that in some cases you may have some percentage of fault, too.
In California, it is important to understand what happens if you shared some of the fault for the accident that caused your injuries. Historically, the law applied contributory or comparative negligence to such situations. Contributory negligence theory prevents a party from recovering any damages if that party contributed at all the accident. In other words, if you suffered $1 million worth of damages in a car accident, but it is determined that you were one percent at fault, you would not be entitled to any compensation. Fortunately, only a handful of jurisdictions use contributory negligence and California is not one of them (California abandoned contributory negligence, and currently uses comparative negligence/fault standard). By contrast, comparative negligence takes into account any fault on the part of the plaintiff and adjusts damages accordingly. For example, if you were 10 percent at fault in a pedestrian accident in which you suffered $1 million worth of damages, your damages would be reduced by 10 percent, but you would still be entitled to the remaining 90 percent, or $900,000.
Pure Comparative Negligence in California vs. Modified Comparative Negligence
Comparative negligence can be further sub-divided into pure comparative negligence and modified comparative negligence. Which standard is used determines how much fault a plaintiff can have and still recover damages in a personal injury accident case.
California applies a pure comparative negligence standard. Under pure comparative negligence, a plaintiff can be primarily at fault and be entitled to damages from the defendant. Imagine, for instance, that you were involved in a train accident in which you suffered $500,000 in damages. A judge or jury, however, determines that you were 80 percent at fault, leaving the defendant only 20 percent at fault. Because California uses a pure comparative fault standard you would still be entitled to a damage award, but it would be reduced by your share of the fault. In this case, your $500,000 damages would be reduced by 80 percent for your fault, still leaving you with a $100,000 award.
Modified comparative negligence caps the amount of fault a plaintiff can have and still be entitled to compensation. Most states use a 50 percent or 51 percent rule. When a 50 percent modified comparative negligence rule is used a plaintiff cannot recover any damages if it is determined that he/she was 50 percent or more at fault whereas a 51 percent rule prohibits a damage award if the plaintiff was 51 percent or more at fault. But again, modified comparative negligence is not used in California. As described above, California applies the pure comparative negligence standard.
Schedule your consultation now!
- Confidential
- Charge-Free
- Individualized
Comparative Negligence vs. Comparative Fault in Your Personal Injury Case
All personal injury accidents EXCEPT those that fall under strict liability or intentional torts require a plaintiff to prove that the defendant(s) was negligent. Negligence is a legal standard that requires a showing that a duty of care existed, the defendant breached the duty of care, that breach was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, and the plaintiff suffered damages. The doctrine of “Comparative Negligence” was developed to address situations where the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to the accident and/or more than one defendant was negligent. As described above, negligence is only one way to prove fault. Comparative negligence specifically applies to personal injury cases that require a showing of negligence. However, this concept is used interchangeably – along with the “Comparative Fault” concept – in other tort cases as well. To help you better understand how California’s comparative negligence / comparative fault standard applies in your personal injury case, simply consider the following examples:
- Motor vehicle accidents. Imagine that you were injured in a motor vehicle accident involving two other vehicles for example. You suffered $100,000 in damages; however, you were also 20 percent at fault because you were speeding. The other drivers were 50 percent and 30 percent at fault. You would be entitled to collect 50 percent of your damages ($50,000) from one driver and 30 percent ($30,000) from the other driver.
- Premises liability accidents. Similarly, imagine that you tripped on broken concrete on a sidewalk at your hotel one night and suffered $100,000 in damages. Because you were intoxicated at the time, let’s say you are found to have been 60 percent at fault in this accident. In California, luckily, you could be entitled to the remaining 40 percent of your damages ($40,000) from the hotel under the state’s pure comparative negligence rule.
- Product liability and other strict liability torts. In a strict liability case, a plaintiff is NOT required to prove negligence. In fact, the plaintiff does not need to prove any wrongdoing on the part of a defendant for the defendant to be “at fault.” For example, in a product liability case, the plaintiff only needs to show that he was injured by the product and that the defendant was part of the “chain of distribution.” The concept of comparative fault, however, is used in a strict liability lawsuit if the plaintiff’s OWN conduct contributed to the accident and/or if more than one defendant was responsible for the product finding its way into the stream of commerce (as is often the case). For example, if you are injured by a defective toaster, but your injuries occurred after you stuck a knife in the toaster, you could be partially at fault despite the application of strict liability to defective products. In that case, your damage award would be reduced in accordance with the percentage of your fault.
- Assault and other intentional torts. In an intentional tort, the plaintiff must show intent to harm, or malice, to recover damages. Again, negligence is not part of an intentional tort lawsuit BUT the concept of comparative fault is used to apportion fault among defendants. The plaintiff’s own negligence, however, CANNOT be used to reduce a damage award. California law does not allow the wrongdoer to use comparative fault as a defense. In other words, if you suffer $50,000 in damages as a result of an assault, the law does not allow evidence of your negligence to be used to reduce the damages owed to you by the defendant.
Experienced Personal Injury Attorneys in Los Angeles
When you’ve been injured due to someone else’s wrongful actions, you deserve full and fair compensation. Securing that compensation can be a challenging legal fight, requiring dedication, skill, and expertise. You and your loved one deserve to be made whole, and an experienced and determined personal injury attorney in Los Angeles can help you achieve that. Contact us today to talk to the right lawyer for your case.
