Comparative fault is a negligence rule according to which parties can share fault for one single accident, and the plaintiff can still receive compensation. According to California Civil Code Section 1714 every person is responsible for intentional acts he commit, and injuries that arise because of his acts.
California is a pure comparative fault state, where a plaintiff has the entitlement for compensation regardless of his percentage of fault. Thus, in case the courts finds a plaintiff guilty for 85% in an accident he will still be gain some compensation. In a modified rule state, a plaintiff usually cannot exceed a certain degree of fault.
The rule of comparative fault is based on a public policy of holding people legally liable for their actions. In case a person was injured partly because of his own negligence and partly because of the negligence of other people, he should not be totally barred from bringing a claim.
According to CACI 405 in case the defendant claims that plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to his harm he must be able prove the following elements:
In case the defendant proves all the above mentioned elements, the plaintiff’s damages will be reduced by the jury’s determination of the percentage of his responsibility. According to CACI 406 the percentages must be total 100 percent when dividing up fault among the plaintiffs, defendants, and any non-parties.
The Court or jury will assign a percentage of fault to each party involved in the accident. Once the percentages of fault are assigned. Each party will be responsible for a percentage of his medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other financial damages. Which are equal to the percentage assigned to that party.
In case when two or more defendants are responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries, he can recover damages from either or both of the defendants; in other term: joint and several liability. Joint and several liability is applicable to economic damages, including medical expenses, loss of income, property damage and loss of earning capacity. The plaintiff can also recover pain and suffering.
As stated above, California is a comparative fault state. This allows the plaintiff to recover damages even if he shares the fault for accident. Contributory negligence is a harsher rule. This usually provides that in case the plaintiff is negligent in causing his own injury, he cannot get any compensation. The majority of states use some version of comparative fault, either modified comparative negligence or pure comparative fault. Some states follow a combination of both types of negligence laws.
Navigating the Process and Deadlines Under the FTCA When a federal employee or agency’s negligence injures someone, pursuing justice becomes…
Understanding a Motion to Dismiss and Seal a Criminal Record A motion to dismiss and seal a criminal record in…
The Future of Urban Mobility Takes Flight Los Angeles is on the edge of a transportation breakthrough as flying taxis…
Widespread Abuse in California Juvenile Facilities Over the last several years, disturbing accounts of sexual abuse, assault, and misconduct have…
In a landmark move, Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed a new bill into law. This bill dramatically reshapes the relationship…
The homelessness epidemic is the most visible crisis facing California cities. Encampments line sidewalks and parks, creating complex social and…