comparative fault - Walton Law Firm

When Do I Need to Think About Comparative Fault in My Vista Personal Injury Case?

North County Injury Lawyers — Fri, 14 Apr 2023 17:56:57 GMT

After any kind of serious accident or situation in Vista in which another party’s negligence or intentional wrongdoing causes a personal injury, it is important to think about filing a claim for compensation. Depending upon the cause of the injury, and the type of accident or circumstances in which the injury occurred, it may be possible to file an insurance claim to seek compensation before considering a personal injury lawsuit. At other times, it may be necessary to begin thinking immediately about a civil lawsuit under California law. If you have done any initial research into personal injury cases in Southern California, you might have come across the term “comparative fault” or “comparative negligence.”

When does the issue of comparative fault apply to a personal injury case? Our Vista personal injury lawyers can clarify.

Comparative Fault or Comparative Negligence Involves the Plaintiff’s Liability

Questions of comparative fault or comparative negligence involve the plaintiff’s own liability in a civil lawsuit. Indeed, the terms comparative fault or comparative negligence refer to the way that the plaintiff’s own fault or negligence compares with the defendant’s fault or negligence, and how the plaintiff’s portion of that fault or negligence will impact their ability to recover damages.

Issue of Comparative Fault or Negligence Will Only Come Up if the Defendant Raises it

Comparative fault or negligence is a defense strategy, and it only comes up if the defendant raises it. To be clear, even if you believe you are partially at fault in a personal injury case, the issue of your fault once you file a civil lawsuit against a defendant will only arise if the defendant argues that they should not be responsible for paying damages (or should only be responsible for a smaller portion of damages) due to your fault as a plaintiff.

California Uses a “Pure” Comparative Fault or Negligence Model

If there is a possibility that this issue of comparative negligence will come up in your case, how will it impact your claim and your payout? You should know that different states have their own models of comparative fault or comparative negligence. A small number of states use a “pure contributory negligence” rule, which says a plaintiff is totally barred from recovery if that plaintiff is even 1% at fault. There are a lot of states that use a “modified comparative fault” rule that only bars a plaintiff’s recovery once the plaintiff’s fault reaches 50% or 51%. California uses a rule that is more generous to plaintiffs.

Under California’s “pure” comparative fault rule, plaintiffs can recover damages regardless of their percentage of fault, as long as the defendant is still partially at fault (even if the defendant’s fault is ultimately only 1%). However, the damages the plaintiff recovers will be diminished by the plaintiff’s percentage of fault. For example, if a court awards a plaintiff $100,000 but the court also finds that the plaintiff was 10% at fault, the plaintiff would recover $90,000 (or, $100,000 minus 10%).

Contact a Vista Personal Injury Lawyer Today

Whether you have questions or concerns about comparative negligence and your own possible liability in a personal injury claim you plan to file, or if you need more general assistance with a personal injury case, one of our lawyers can help. Do not hesitate to get in touch with an experienced Vista personal injury attorney to learn more about the services we provide and the wide variety of personal injury claims we handle. Contact the Walton Law Firm today for additional information.

What is Comparative Fault in an Oceanside Car Accident?

North County Injury Lawyers — Fri, 04 Feb 2022 19:26:07 GMT

After an Oceanside car accident in which another motorist is at fault, you should be thinking about your options for filing a claim for financial compensation. For most injury victims in motor vehicle collisions, the first step in seeking compensation is filing an auto insurance claim. Auto insurance claims can be filed as first-party claims through an injured person’s own auto insurance policy, or as third-party claims through the at-fault motorist’s auto insurance policy. When an auto insurance claim does not result in sufficient compensation, an injured person will often move on to file a car accident lawsuit. However, in some cases, the defendant will attempt to reduce his or her liability by raising the issue of comparative fault.

What is comparative fault, and how can it impact your payout in an Oceanside car accident claim?

Understanding Damages in a Car Accident and the Effect of Comparative Fault

To understand how comparative fault can affect a car accident lawsuit payout, it is important to understand first how damages awards work in car accident cases. If a person files a car accident lawsuit, they can be eligible to seek different types of compensatory damages, including economic and non-economic damages. Economic damages compensate for direct and objective losses that are financial in nature, such as hospital bills, or the wages a person lost due to an inability to work because of the auto accident injury. Non-economic damages are subjective in nature, and they are designed to compensate a person for non-monetary losses such as a person’s physical or mental suffering and emotional distress.

If the defendant raises the issue of comparative fault and is successful in proving that you are also partially to blame for the car accident, your damages award can be reduced by your portion of fault.

California’s Comparative Fault Law and Car Accident Damages

When a defendant says the plaintiff is also at fault for injuries, the defendant is raising the defense of comparative fault, arguing that she or he should not be responsible for paying the full amount of damages. Under California’s pure comparative fault law, a plaintiff will not be barred from recovery if the defendant can prove that the plaintiff is also partially at fault. This is true whether the plaintiff is anywhere from 1% to 99% at fault. However, if the defendant can prove that the plaintiff is partially at fault, the plaintiff’s damages will be diminished by his or her percentage of fault.

For example, if the defendant argues that the plaintiff should bear some responsibility for the accident due to texting while driving—even if the defendant ran a red light and caused the accident—the defendant will need to prove that the plaintiff is also at fault. The plaintiff will be able to counter the defendant’s allegations with evidence that shows the defendant bears all liability. If the defendant is successful, however, the court will need to determine the plaintiff’s percentage of fault. Then, the plaintiff’s compensatory damages award will be reduced by that percentage of fault.

To be clear, even if you violated a traffic law but the defendant still caused the car accident, you will be able to recover damages under California’s comparative fault law. You should know, however, that your damages award can be diminished if the court determines that you are also partially at fault for the crash.

Contact a Car Accident Lawyer in Oceanside

If you have questions about seeking damages in a car accident lawsuit, our Oceanside car accident attorneys can help. Contact the Walton Law Firm for more information.

How Can Comparative Fault Affect the Outcome of My Personal Injury Lawsuit in Carlsbad?

North County Injury Lawyers — Fri, 25 Dec 2020 18:14:28 GMT

If you were injured in an accident in Carlsbad or in another incident that resulted in a serious personal injury, you may be thinking about your options for seeking financial compensation. If you were harmed in a motor vehicle collision, you could be eligible to seek financial compensation by filing an auto insurance claim before you need to move onto thinking about a lawsuit. Or, if you were injured at work, you could be eligible to obtain medical benefits and money to cover lost wages by filing a workers’ compensation claim. For other types of accidents, the first step may be to file a personal injury lawsuit against the at-fault party.

Whether you have already gone through another claims or benefits process, or you are getting started quickly on your personal injury lawsuit, it is important to understand how comparative fault may affect the outcome of your lawsuit.

What is Comparative Fault?

Comparative fault, which is known as contributory fault or contributory negligence in some states, is an affirmative defense for a person who is facing liability for damages in a personal injury lawsuit. With comparative fault or contributory negligence, the defendant can raise the issue of comparative fault, alleging that the plaintiff’s own negligence or fault played a role in causing the accident or the seriousness of the injuries in order to reduce or bar damages for the plaintiff.

While some states will bar a plaintiff from recovery if that plaintiff is responsible for some of the fault, California follows what is known in the law as a pure comparative fault rule. What this means is that a plaintiff will not be barred from recovery if the plaintiff is 5% at fault or even 95% at fault. Instead, the plaintiff will have her damages award reduced based on her total percentage of fault.

Comparative Fault Does Not Automatically Reduce Your Damages

Just because a defendant raises the defense of comparative fault does not mean that you will automatically see your damages award reduced by any percentage. You will have the ability to produce evidence that refutes the defendant’s allegations and shows that the defendant bears full responsibility for the accident and for your injuries. Your attorney can help with this process.

How Does Comparative Fault Ultimately Work?

Here is an example of how comparative fault works: If you are injured in a car accident caused by a texting driver, that driver might raise the issue of comparative fault by showing that you were not wearing your seatbelt when the accident happened. Even if the at-fault driver can prove that you were not buckled in, California’s pure comparative fault rule will mean that your damages award will only be reduced by your portion of the fault. If the court decides that the distracted, texting driver is 95% at fault but you are 5% at fault (because your injuries are more severe than they would have been if you had worn your seatbelt), your damages award will be reduced by 5%.

Contact a Carlsbad Personal Injury Lawyer for Help

If you have questions about comparative fault in your personal injury case, an experienced Carlsbad personal injury attorney can assist you. Contact the Walton Law Firm today for more information.

Should I File a Claim if I Was Partially at Fault for My Rancho Bernardo Motorcycle Accident?

North County Injury Lawyers — Fri, 24 Jan 2020 22:35:20 GMT

Getting hurt in a motorcycle crash in Rancho Bernardo can be devastating. When motorcyclists are involved in collisions with cars or trucks, the motorcyclist often is the one who sustains particularly severe injuries. As the Insurance Information Institute (III) explains, “motorcycles are by their nature far less crashworthy than closed vehicles,” making motorcyclists more vulnerable in the event of an accident. While motor vehicle drivers often are at fault for motorcycle crashes in Southern California, motorcyclists can also bear some responsibility for the collision. If you were involved in a motorcycle accident and you think you may have been partially to blame, you may be wondering: Should I still file a claim even if I am partially at fault?

Generally speaking, it is extremely important to file a claim even if you think you may bear some responsibility for the crash. Yet perhaps even more importantly, you should know the proper steps for moving forward with your claim to give yourself the best chance at obtaining full compensation for your losses.

Do Not Admit Fault—Even if You Think You Might be Partially to Blame

The first thing to know about seeking financial compensation for your motorcycle accident injuries is that you should never admit fault. Even if you think you may bear some responsibility for the accident, you should never provide this information to law enforcement officials at the scene or to any insurance adjusters. You will need to provide factual information to law enforcement officials at the scene, which is important to do. When you contact your insurance company, you will also need to provide basic information about the facts concerning the collision. However, you should never tell an insurance company that you think you might be partially to blame.

Keep in mind that insurance companies are not on the side of any insured. Rather, insurance companies and adjusters are thinking about their own bottom line. If an insurance company thinks you might be responsible for a crash, it may attempt to lower the settlement offer. If an insurance company can avoid paying out a claim altogether, it will certainly do so. Accordingly, only state the facts and keep your thoughts about liability to yourself until you speak with a motorcycle accident attorney.

Know That You can Still Obtain Damages Even if a Court Says You are Partially at Fault

Whether you are seeking a settlement from an insurance company or end up taking your case to court, it is important to know that you can still receive compensation even if you are partially to blame. To be clear, it is still worth it to seek compensation even if you think you bear some responsibility for the crash because California law still allows you to obtain damages.

Under California’s comparative fault law, whether a plaintiff is 1% or 99% at fault, the plaintiff can recover compensation. However, the plaintiff’s damages award will be reduced by the plaintiff’s percentage of fault. In California, comparative fault does not bar a plaintiff’s ability to recover.

Contact a Rancho Bernardo Motorcycle Accident Attorney

Were you involved in a motorcycle accident in Rancho Bernardo? If you suffered injuries because of another motorist’s negligence, it is essential to file a claim for financial compensation. An aggressive Rancho Bernardo motorcycle accident attorney at our firm can begin working on your case today. Contact the Walton Law Firm for more information about motorcycle accident lawsuits in California.

Comparative Fault and Vista Car Accident Lawsuits

North County Injury Lawyers — Fri, 01 Nov 2019 13:47:29 GMT

If you are in a car accident in Vista and file a lawsuit against the negligent driver, how will your case be impacted if the defendant says you are partially to blame for the accident? This question concerns “comparative fault,” which is sometimes known as contributory negligence or contributory fault. In short, when a plaintiff files an accident claim against the responsible party, that defendant can raise the issue of comparative fault as a defense to avoid paying the plaintiff the full amount of compensation he or she is seeking. While each state has its own laws concerning comparative fault, it is important to know that a plaintiff in California can still recover damages even if the court says the plaintiff is partially to blame.

We want to tell you more about California’s comparative fault law, and to explain how it may affect a car accident lawsuit in Vista.

California Follows a Pure Comparative Fault Rule

As we mentioned above, different states handle issues of comparative fault in various ways. Some states follow what is known as a pure contributory negligence rule, barring a plaintiff from any type of recovery if that plaintiff is even one percent at fault for an accident. Other states follow some form of a modified comparative fault rule in which a plaintiff is barred from recovery once that plaintiff is either 50% or more at fault, or 51% or more at fault—the distinction varies based on the particular state.

California follows what is known as a pure comparative fault rule. This means that a car accident plaintiff in Vista can recover damages from the defendant whether that plaintiff is 1% at fault, or even 99% at fault. In other words, as long as the defendant is still at fault in some capacity, then the plaintiff is still entitled to recover damages. However, it is important to know that the plaintiff’s damages award ultimately is reduced by his or her portion of the fault and the defendant is responsible for paying only his or her portion of fault. In other words, fault is apportioned accordingly.

Comparative fault is not an issue that the plaintiff would raise, or that the court would raise on its own. Rather, comparative fault is a defense that the defendant might raise in order to reduce his percentage of liability. If you are concerned that you may be partially at fault for your car accident, you should talk with a Vista car accident attorney about gathering evidence to prove that the defendant (or defendants) is entirely at fault and that you bear no responsibility or fault for the collision.

How Does Comparative Fault Work in Practice?

If the defendant is successful in proving that the plaintiff is partially at fault for a Vista car crash, then the plaintiff’s damages award is reduced by the plaintiff’s portion of fault.

For example, if the jury decides that the plaintiff is 5% responsible, that plaintiff’s damages award would be reduced by 5%. Let us say that the jury awards the plaintiff a total of $100,000. The court would then reduce that amount by the plaintiff’s portion of fault, or 5% (so, $100,000 – 5%, or $5,000), and the plaintiff would recover $95,000. The same type of equation would be used whether the plaintiff is nominally at fault or largely at fault. For instance, if the plaintiff is 90% at fault, that $100,000 damages award would be reduced by 90%, or $90,000, and the plaintiff would recover $10,000 under California’s comparative fault law.

Contact a Vista Auto Accident Lawyer

If you have questions about comparative fault and your traffic crash claim, an experienced car accident attorney in Vista can assist you. Contact the Walton Law Firm for more information.